Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on 17th December, 1942, for the Christmas Recess—met, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death, on active Service, of Major Lord Apsley, D.S.O., M.C., Member for the Borough of Bristol (Central Division), and Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. Somerset Arthur Maxwell, Member for the County of Norfolk (King's Lynn Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Members.

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued during the Adjournment Warrants for new Writs, namely,

for the University of Wales, in the room of Ernest Evans, Esquire, K.C. (Judge of the County Court, North Wales);

for the County of Lanark (Hamilton Division), in the room of Duncan Macgregor Graham, Esquire, deceased.

NEW WRITS

For the County of Antrim, in the room of Sir Joseph McConnell, Baronet, deceased;

For the Borough of Belfast (West Division), in the room of Alexander Crawford Browne, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills: That in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Bridgwater Gas.
Colne Valley Water.
Northampton Corporation.
Sunderland Corporation.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills: That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Cardiff Corporation.
Grand Union Canal.
Liverpool Hydraulic Power.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE (PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS)

Mr. William Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give the names, ages and salaries of the Director of Public Relations and the Public Relations Officer, Board of Trade, with the dates of their appointment, details of positions they held prior to it and before the war and an explanation of the difference in their respective functions;
(2) in what circumstances Mr. C. J. J. Simmons, the Director of the Publications Department of the Board of Trade, was released from military service; what is his age; what journalistic experience he has had; and whether he considered the appointment of a disabled man, or man over military age, to this post?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): As the answer is somewhat detailed, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Director of Public Relations: Mr. C. C. J. Simmonds, age 37, salary £1,500 appointed 27th April, 1942. Before the war he was a director of Pritchard, Wood and Partners, incorporated practitioners in advertising; he has held a number of other posts in advertising and publishing, has engaged in free-lance journalism and has been closely connected with the Press for a number of years. He was called up as a member of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve in October, 1939, was placed on the Unemployed List in May, 1940, at the request of the Air Ministry, in order to become Assistant Public Relations Director, British Overseas Airways Corporation, and held that post until appointed to the Board of Trade.

Public Relations Officer: Mr. F. W. P. Carter, age 52, salary £1,000, appointed 15th December, 1941. From December, 1930, till his appointment to the Board of Trade, he was London News Editor, Allied Newspapers.

Mr. Simmonds is the Head of the Public Relations and Press Department of the Board of Trade. He is responsible for

keeping the public and traders informed about Board of Trade activities, which affect them, through the Press and other methods of publicity. Mr. Carter is Mr. Simmonds' deputy, and has a special responsibility for dealing with the Press, as distinct from the other publicity work of the Department. Men above military age were among those considered for the post of Director of Public Relations at the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Small Traders (Register)

Captain Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement regarding the compilation of the register of small traders who have been, or may be, forced to close their businesses owing to the war?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. Plans are now complete for a register of traders who have withdrawn from retail trade since the war began or may be forced to withdraw before the war is over. Registration will be voluntary and subject to the following conditions:
A trader must have closed a shop since the beginning of the war. He must have been in business for a minimum period before closing. He must have dealt in goods or services covered by the Location of Retail Businesses Order. A shopkeeper who sold his business as a going concern will not be eligible for the register, but may apply to have his name entered on a supplementary list.
Application forms can be obtained from local Chambers of Trade or Chambers of Commerce, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, W.V.S. representatives in rural areas, or from the Board of Trade. Arrangements are also being made to advise members of His Majesty's Forces, both at home and overseas, and members of the Merchant Navy, how to apply. In certain cases applications may be made by proxy. All applications will be acknowledged without delay, but, as the staff on this work must be kept to a bare minimum, it may be some time before final acceptance can be notified.
As I have already stated, this register is "a first step to safeguard the interests of retail traders who have already withdrawn or who may be forced by circumstances to withdraw in future." Many


will wish to re-open their shops after the war, and, if, as seems likely, some control over the opening and re-opening of shops is continued for a time after the war, the information provided by the register and the supplementary list will help us to operate this control with fairness to those retailers who have been forced to close during the war.

Captain Duncan: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, which will be very welcome to many small traders?

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the steps my right hon. Friend is now taking, will he ask his Department to consider making, after the war, a complete census of distribution in this country, as is done in some other countries?

Mr. Dalton: I very much regret that before the war no such census was made; if it had been, it would have helped me very greatly. As my right hon. Friend appreciates, man-power considerations make it quite impossible to embark on that now, but after the war I will certainly give it very careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Doland: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that there will be a system of licensing for shop opening after the war?

Mr. Daltom: If my hon. Friend will read the answer, in which I chose my words very carefully, he will see there just as much as can be said now.

Girls' Training Corps (Uniforms)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the widespread and growing feeling of injustice throughout the National Association of Girls' Training Corps, he will reconsider his decision regarding the granting of some assistance, either by coupons or financial help, towards providing members of the various units with uniform?

Mr. Dalton: As I have explained in answer to previous Questions on this subject, I regret that, in view of the increasing stringency of supplies, I cannot justify a coupon concession to these organisations. The question of financial help is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

Mrs. Keir: In view of the fact that the boy cadets get their uniforms given to them at 14 years of age, is it not very unfair that the girl cadets should get no assistance at all, seeing that the majority of them will probably be joining the Services at a later date?

Mr. Dalton: As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a lot of consideration of this matter. I would like to point out to her that the voluntary youth organisations have no coupon concessions at all. In this respect the organisation referred to in the Question is treated in exactly the same way as the Boy Scouts. I would also point out that growing girls—and many of those concerned here fall into that category—get 10 extra coupons in any event. I am sorry I cannot go further, but the shortage of supplies is the predominant factor, which has to be borne in mind all the time.

Miss Ward: Do not boys grow, too?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the immense strides and progress made by this movement in recent months, and will he consider the good effect there would be on the morale of these girls if this comparatively small concession were made?

Mr. Dalton: I cannot go any further than I have stated. I have the greatest sympathy with and appreciation of the work of these young people in these organisations, but I am sure that if hon. Members put to them the position with regard to the shortage of supplies due to the demands of the Forces and the conduct of the war, the morale of these young people will be elevated rather than depressed.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid I did not hear it.

Radio Equipment (Electrolytic Condensers)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of electrolytic condensers in the Midlands; and whether, as such shortage may seriously affect large numbers of wireless owners, he has any proposals to make for remedying it?

Mr. Dalton: The shortage of electrolytic condensers is due to the ever-increasing demands of the Fighting Services for radio equipment of all kinds. I fully recognise the importance of keeping civilian wireless sets in use and steps have already been taken to increase production of electrolytic condensers.

Mr. Dugdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and I have no doubt in others, 25 per cent. of all repairs to wireless sets are due to breakdowns in this particular apparatus?

Mr. Dalton: I have been giving personal attention to this matter for some little while. I have had a number of reports on the difficulties of owners of wireless sets. I am glad to say that arrangements have now been made which, if they are carried out, as I hope they will be, by those concerned, will mean that by the end of March next we will have filled up the gaps in the 1942 maintenance programme.

Wool Underwear (Boys)

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to allocate wool for under-garments for boys; and, if so, when would these garments be ready for purchase by the public?

Mr. Dalton: The needs of infants and young children up to the age of four are being met by the production of all wool under-garments. As supplies of wool yarn are limited, the production of all wool underwear for the rest of the population has had to be cut down, in order that the maximum number of warm garments may be produced from wool mixed with other yams. The output of boys' undergarments made of mixtures of wool and cotton has been substantially increased by these measures.

Alarm Clocks and Cycle Lamp Batteries

Mr. Kirby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to meet the pressing needs of war-workers and in order to reduce absenteeism, he will arrange immediately for a wide distribution to retailers of alarm clocks and cycle lamp batteries for sale at reasonable prices?

Mr. Dalton: Before the war nearly all our alarm clocks were imported, and we now depend mainly on the United States for our supplies. Imports from the United States have decreased owing to the requirements of American war production.

My representative in Washington has already taken up this question with the United States authorities, and I am now myself in communication on the subject with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister Resident in Washington for Supply. The Service demand for batteries absorbs a large part of the current output and has much increased lately. I recently asked the head of the firm who are responsible for the bulk of home production to come and see me and impressed on him the importance of doing everything possible to increase production so as to meet civilian as well as Service requirements. The supplies made available for civilians during the past six months have been substantial, and I hope it may be possible to increase them still further.

Mr. Kirby: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, will he bear in mind the urgency of this problem in relation to production?

Mr. Dalton: I intend to keep on prodding with regard to both these things.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer include electric alarm clocks, which use a smaller weight of metal than mechanical ones?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. With regard to the electric and the other variety, we are still dependent nearly exclusively on the United States for imports of these. Before the war we got them largely from France, Italy and Switzerland, as well as the United States.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lack of alarm clocks is having a serious effect in the coalfields in the North, where large numbers of miners go to work at one o'clock and two o'clock in the morning, and are largely dependent on alarm clocks?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am very conscious of that. That is one of the reasons I am pressing vigorously forward in the matter.

Mr. Thorne: Could not my right hon. Friend arrange to have the old knockers-up with a long pole?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Pioneer Corps

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in


view of their war record, especially as the Pioneer Corps now play their part in combined operations and were among the first troops to land in North Africa and that so many officers and men have been transferred from Royal regiments and corps, he will now recommend that the title and honour of Royal be granted to the Pioneer Corps?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I think that it will be best to follow the normal practice and postpone consideration of such matters as this till the end of the war.

Books on Russia

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Soviet Government or its representatives in this country and the Board of Education were consulted as to the list of books respecting the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics recommended by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs for political discussion in Army groups; and if he will give a list of the titles and authors of the selected books?

Sir J. Grigg: The lists to which my hon. Friend refers were included as bibliographies in Army Bureau of Current Affairs publications, but were not themselves recommended for discussion. Similar lists for many other countries have been issued, and it has not been considered necessary to consult either the Board of Education or the Governments or their representatives here. I will circulate the lists asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Adams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would have been desirable to consult these fountain heads in both cases?

Sir J. Grigg: No, I do not think it is necessary. In supplying a list of books which the officers conducting the Bureau may consult if they wish without any recommendation, I do not think it is necessary to consult any outsiders.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he permits the foulest slanders against our great Ally to be circulated?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member will read the list, which I will circulate, he will see that only one of the books mentioned

is hostile to the Soviet Union, and that is specifically stated to be a hostile book.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not right to hear both sides of the question?

Following are the lists:

1. Russia. Sir Bernard Pares.

Stalin and Hitler. L. Fischer.

Soviet Russia: an Introduction. K. Gibberd.

Interesting pamphlets are:—

The U.S.S.R. in Home and Foreign Affairs. A speech by Stalin, March, 1939. Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. Is Communism a New Civilisation? Left Review.

Soviet Communism: Dictatorship or Democracy? Left Review.

(Both by Sidney and Beatrice Webb; chapters adapted from their large book Soviet Communism.)

2. Russia, by Sir Bernard Pares.

Broken Earth, by Maurice Hindus. (A picture of the Russian peasantry since the Revolution.)

Memories of a British Agent, by Bruce Lockhart. (This is an exciting account of the Russian Revolution by a British diplomatic agent who lived through it.)

False Utopia, by W. H. Chamberlin. (A hostile account.)

The following "Oxford Pamphlets on World Affairs":

No. 14. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, by J. W. Wheeler Bennett.

No. 27. The Baltic, by J. Hampden Jackson.

No. 34. Russian Foreign Policy, by Barbara Ward.

The following numbers of the British Survey are relevant:

Vol. III. No. 3. Some Characteristics of Communism.

No. 4. The Russian Revolution.

3. N. Mikhaylov. Soviet Geography.

World production of Raw Materials.

Bulletin of International News.

12th July, 1941. "Russian Resources and their Location."

9th August, 1941. "The Defence Position in the Russian Far East."

18th October, 1941. "Russian Communications in the Arctic Region."

Beveridg e Report (Bureau of Current Affairs)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether an adequate summary of the Beveridge Report has been published by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs; and whether officers are being given every encouragement to initiate discussions on the Report in their units?

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) the reasons for the withdrawal of a recent issue of "Current Affairs" containing a summary by Sir William Beveridge of his recent Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services;
(2) whether his attention has been called to a broadcast on 22nd December, 1942, by Mr. R. G. Casey, Minister of State, in the course of which he said that the Beveridge Report had aroused the greatest interest among the troops in the Middle East; and whether he proposes to make available to them the full Report or the report in brief and, if so, when?

Sir J. Grigg: There has been a great deal of misunderstanding on this subject. In the first place, there has been no ban on discussion of the Beveridge Report in the Army. Any soldier can read the Report or the abridged form of it as much as he likes, and the Command Education Authorities are being encouraged to provide lectures on the subject by qualified lecturers, both military and civilian, under the ordinary Army Education Scheme. A. B.C.A. discussions are on a quite different footing. The basis of these is a weekly compulsory parade at which regimental officers are required to initiate a debate on a prescribed subject aided by a brief provided for them but not for the soldiers. The briefs are contained in alternative weeks in the two A.B.C.A. publications "War" and "Current Affairs." To me it seems obvious that it is absolutely vital that these briefs should not only be completely objective but should in addition be generally accepted as being so.
When then I was shown an issue of "Current Affairs," containing, besides an official brief, a summary of the Beveridge Report written by the author himself, I took the view that compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been at any rate a preliminary Debate in this House on the subject. For one thing it might easily have conveyed the impression that the scheme set out in the Report was settled Government policy whereas in fact no decision of any kind has been taken. Unfortunately, the matter was, for various reasons into which I need not enter, brought to me at a very late stage and the copies had

already left the printer for distribution. It was, therefore, necessary to give orders for their withdrawal. The choice presented to me was a difficult one, but I have no doubt that I took the better of the two courses open to me. The factor which principally weighed with me was the absolute necessity of keeping A.B.C.A. out of possible political controversy, particularly in view of the fact that attendance at these debates is compulsory.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision has caused grave dissatisfaction, and that controversial matters have frequently been discussed at these discussions, even including the U.S.S.R.? Does he intend in future to put a ban on controversial discussion?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member must read into my answer no more than is contained in it. Discussion is reasonably free, provided that it can take place in the light of all the facts and on a brief which is objective, and with no suspicion of partiality.

Mr. Bowles: Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that members of the civilian Army are less intelligent than a great number of other people and are likely to assume that the Beveridge Report is settled Government policy, when that is not considered by anyone else to be a likely conclusion to come to?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not assume that members of the Army are less intelligent than the civilian population or anyone else. They are an extremely intelligent class.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not the summary prepared by Sir William Beveridge be regarded as purely objective? Moreover, why does the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as an arbiter on matters of alleged controversy which are to come before men in the Forces?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not set myself up as an arbiter in the least. As one of the original parents of the A.B.C.A. scheme, I am extremely sensitive of any possibility of its being involved in controversy so that it becomes a failure. In the present instance, controversy has left it and has centred itself upon me, and I am content that it should be so.

Major Petherick: Is it not highly undesirable and improper that lectures of a political nature should be delivered to the Forces, and is it not virtually impossible to lecture on such matters as tariffs, post-war reconstruction and the Beveridge scheme without betraying political views unless the lecturer is vapid or uninteresting?

Sir J. Grigg: The knife edge is certainly an extremely narrow one.

Mr. Dugdale: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on another occasion.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many copies of the bulletin concerning the Beveridge Report, issued by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, were not returned after its withdrawal?

Sir J. Grigg: Copies are still being sent in, and the returns are not yet complete.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making this bulletin available to Members of the House, out of the ample stocks now presumably in hand, so that they can judge for themselves how completely objective and harmless it is?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: But why? May we understand why my right hon. Friend declines to put hon. Members in possession of the facts? Are we not entitled to know all the facts objectively and will he not reconsider his decision?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly give the matter further consideration, but I think it would be much better to wait and see what final edition might be sent out in the light of the situation after the Debate in this House.

Captain Sir William Brass: In view of the laudatory foreword which is written to this leaflet, will my right hon. Friend have the whole thing published to the House of Commons? We want copies so that we can see what is written as a foreword to the Beveridge Report for the Army.

Mr. Driberg: It is not laudatory; it is impartial.

Sir J. Grigg: I have said that I will reconsider the matter.

Mr. Pickthorn: In doing that will my right hon. Friend consider using his influence with other Ministers, particularly the Minister of Information, so as to enable the House to know what other Ministries have done to expound and commend this Report to the British and foreign publics?

Officers' Pay and Allowances

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War the percentage of officers who have benefited by the increases in pay and, as a separate figure, the percentage of married officers, with and without children, who have benefited by the increased rates of family lodging allowance which came into force on 1st October?

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent increases of pay to subalterns and captains, he can state the approximate number of each rank who will thereby benefit?

Sir J. Grigg: The number of those entitled to benefit by the increases in pay is not yet known, since much of the relevant information is not in the possession of the pay authorities who must therefore in a large proportion of cases await claims from officers, but it would not in any case be a large proportion of the total number of officers. The percentages of married officers who benefit from the increased rates of family lodging allowance are: of those without children, 55 per cent.; of those with children, 75 per cent.

Missing soldiers, Middle East

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether an effective organisation for searching for the missing has now been established in the Middle East?

Sir J. Grigg: As was explained in an answer to my hon. Friend on 10th March, 1942, the primary responsibility for tracing missing soldiers rests with the local military authorities. Their organisation for carrying out this work has for a long time been effective. I am glad to say that owing to the improved situation in the Middle East, the local military authorities will in future be able to avail themselves of the assistance of voluntary workers organised by the War Organisation of the British Red Cross


Society and Order of St. John, to carry out inquiries for the missing among patients in those military hospitals to which they can be given access in the Command. Steps have been taken to organise this service, which will shortly be started. Most of the searchers will be ladies who have had experience of this work in the United Kingdom.

Mr. White: Are we to assume that this is actually going on now?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not sure whether the ladies sent from this country have actually arrived, but they are on their way.

Water Supply (Dowsers)

Captain Studholme: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the War Office is relying upon dowsers for advice on water supply and in what theatres of war; whether this action has been taken with the approval of the Government's scientific advisers; and whether he has any information regarding the reliability of advice given by dowsers during the course of the present war?

Sir J. Grigg: The War Office does not rely on dowsers for advice on water supply in the United Kingdom, and so far as I know the only place where they have been tried is the Middle East. A report of their performance there showed a very small percentage of successes, and orders were issued that scientific geological methods only were to be used.

Invasion (Church Bell Ringing)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether all incumbents, or other persons in charge of church bells, have received instructions as to the course to be pursued in the event of invasion?

Sir J. Grigg: Instructions to the military authorities to make the necessary arrangements with incumbents and others responsible in regard to the ringing of church bells were first given in 1941. Reminders have been given from time to time and the latest instructions on the subject were sent out this month.

Sir H. Williams: If an invasion takes place, how long will it take for the parson and the key to be found? Will it work, as we have a complete siren system throughout the country?

Sir J. Grigg: Local military commanders are being reminded that it is their responsibility to ensure, as far as may be practicable, that the bells are in proper working order and can be rung at any time.

Sir H. Williams: It is not a question of whether the bells are all right, but you have to find the parson, who may be out at a christening or something.

Sir J. Grigg: Local military commanders are responsible for seeing that that is all right.

Mr. De la Bère: It all seems futile; it is futile.

Pay Code Changes

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the promised simplifications of the Army pay system?

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposed simplification of the Army pay system?

Sir J. Grigg: As I indicated in the Debate on Service Pay and Allowances on 10th September, it is impracticable to remove the complications caused by the existence of the pre-1925 and post-1925 rates, but in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministers in charge of the other Service Departments, I have decided to introduce certain alterations in the Army Pay Code, the details of which will appear in Army Orders. I may add that I shall be prepared to place copies in the Library of the House.
These changes, including that which I mentioned in that Debate, are:

(1) The consolidation into inclusive rates of pay of the proficiency additions and service increments of the private soldier which are at present expressed and accounted for separately.
(2) The inclusion in consolidated rates for lance-corporals, corporals, and lance-sergeants of proficiency pay and special proficiency pay irrespective of service in recognition of the fact that their selection for promotion implies the attainment of the required standards of proficiency.


(3) The reduction of the number of trade groups from five to four.

The effect of these alterations will be, first, to make it more easy for the soldier to understand his entitlement; second, to ease the administrative burden of commanding officers; third, by simplifying the compilation of pay accounts, to reduce correspondence between pay offices and units, and thus to lessen the number of operations required in the pay offices themselves.

Major Milner: While appreciating the efforts which the right hon. Gentleman has made, may I ask whether his proposal will enable a slip to be placed in a soldier's paybook to enable him to know what the rates of pay are? Having regard to what appears on the face of them to be rather inadequate modifications and simplifications, would my right hon. Friend keep the matter before him and be prepared to receive further representations if necessary?

Sir J. Grigg: It is the intention to put a slip in the paybook. I am always most anxious to pursue the question of simplification of pay and of the Army administrative system generally, but the hon. and gallant Member realises, I have no doubt, that simplifications invariably have to proceed by levelling up and, therefore, have to be expensive.

Captain C. S. Taylor: When will the report be published?

Sir J. Grigg: The Army Orders will be published as soon as possible.

Junior Officers (Promotion)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the waiting periods before promotion comes to lieutenants and captains are fixed with regard to peacetime conditions or to war-time experience; and whether in war-time the demand for officers is so great as to suggest the waiving of such lengthy periods or the placing of officers without promotion on the reserve?

Sir J. Grigg: The number of officers in each rank above lieutenant is determined by war-time requirements. The number is made up by acting promotion in the first instance. Officers are selected for such promotion by merit and no qualifying period of service is required. Officers are not retired or placed on the reserve so long as they can be suitably employed in their own or higher rank.

Leave

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that, in so far as is possible, every endeavour will be made to enable members of His Majesty's Forces and, in particular, members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service proceeding on short weekend leave, who have to travel long distances to make an early start so that they can reach their homes or destination on the same day and may not be compelled to remain overnight at railway stations before obtaining a connection and reaching their destination?

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend will appreciate that long-distance travel on short pass cannot be encouraged in view of the pressure to which the transport services of the country are now subjected. At the same time I have no doubt that where special circumstances exist applications are dealt with sympathetically.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that at the railway termini in London are to be found large numbers of men who have been unable to reach their destinations on the same day, and is it not possible to request commanding officers to exercise every possible endeavour to do their best to avoid adding to the difficulties?

Sir J. Grigg: I think the congestion in London stations is due not so much to the fact that soldiers are sent off at unsuitable times as to the fact that they leave their units as soon as they can without regard to the train connections available.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem does not affect London only but that it is met with in Birmingham and other provincial cities, and will he consider taking further steps in the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot undertake to reconsider the general position, which has been taken up in consequence of the pressure to which the transport services of the country are subjected, but in cases where special circumstances exist applications are already dealt with.

Mr. De la Bère: Would not common sense and consideration do a great deal in this matter? A great deal more could be done.

Sir J. Grigg: I am all for exercising common sense, but not up to the point where it becomes uncommon nonsense.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend is ignorant of what he is ignorant of.

Welsh Personnel (Badges)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the setting-up of some distinctive mark on the uniform of Welsh soldiers or men serving from Wales?

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that it would not be practicable to accept this proposal. As was explained in answers to similar Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and Stratford (Mr. Groves) on 21st May and 2nd June, 1942, respectively, to do so would cut across the existing system of badges for units from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general desire in Wales that this should be done, and will he not, as one of the members of the Cabinet responsible for Wales, respond to this feeling and give the matter his sympathetic consideration? It could quite easily be done, and it would meet the national feeling in Wales.

Sir J. Grigg: It is not quite easy to do it. My hon. Friend is not correct in saying that. There are Welsh divisions which have Welsh divisional signs, and the Welsh units have individual signs, but I do not think it is practicable to have a special badge for Welsh-speaking soldiers in whatever unit they may be.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I did not mention "Welsh-speaking soldiers." I spoke of soldiers from Wales.

Sir J. Grigg: Well, I meant the same thing.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Education and Discussions

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Army educational classes and discussion circles vary in the latitude allowed in the various units; what is the average number and approximate percentage of units attending such gatherings; and whether, in order to encourage civic education, he will ensure that soldiers are as free to discuss any social, political, or

similar matter in their free time, whether spontaneously or in organised groups, as when they were civilians?

Sir J. Grigg: I assume that my hon. Friend in the first part of his Question is referring to the lectures under the Winter Educational Scheme and the discussions under A.B.C.A. arrangements. Both these are compulsory for the men concerned but I have no figures showing the numbers attending them. I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by latitude. The general subjects both for lectures under the Educational Scheme and for the discussions under A.B.C.A. are approved by the Educational and A.B.C.A. authorities but no doubt some lecturers and some officers in charge of discussions are more successful than others in keeping to the point. As regards the soldiers' spare time they are free to indulge in voluntary discussions on social, political or similar matters provided that they do not do so in organised political groups.

Mr. Sorensen: May we have a further explanation of the latter part of the answer?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will read paragraph 541 of King's Regulations:
No soldier is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party either by acting as a member of a candidate's selection committee or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party or in any other manner.

Mr. Sorensen: That does not mean, I take it, that soldiers are precluded by the Regulation from attending a discussion circle or conference organised by political parties?

Sir J. Grigg: Does the hon. Member mean inside the regiment or outside? If outside, certainly not, inside, certainly.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister tell us whether it is because he kept too much to the point that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was stopped from speaking?

Officers' Uniforms (Prices)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state in detail the difference in the prices of the different articles which comprise an officer's uniform with and without purchase tax?

Sir J. Grigg: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


UNIFORM.


Article.
Net Cost.
Estimated amount of Purchase Tax.
Gross.







£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Service Dress Jacket (with buttons)
…
1
7
1
5

16
5
7
17
10


Trousers
…
…
…
prs. 1
3
0
0

7
0
3
7
0


Belts, Sam Browne
…
…
…
1
1
11
0

5
4
1
16
4


Greatcoat
…
…
…
1
10
16
7
1
4
0
12
0
7


Cap, Field Service
…
…
…
1
1
3
9

3
9
1
7
6


Badges, Cap
…
…
…
2

7
0

1
0

8
0


Shirts (each with 2 collars)
…
…
3
2
16
0

9
6
3
5
6


Boots, ankle
…
…
…
prs. 1
2
17
9

8
9
3
6
6


Boots, ankle
…
…
…
prs. 1
1
4
3

1
5
1
5
8


Tie
…
…
…
2

6
2

1
0

7
2


Gloves
…
…
…
prs. 1

14
6

3
0

17
6


Whistle and Lanyard
…
…
…
1

3
6


9

4
3


Badges, collar
…
…
…
prs. 1

4
1


11

5
0


Battle Dress:—
2
6
8

8
1
2
14
9


Blouse
…
…
…
1


Trousers
…
…
…
prs. 1


Cap, Field Service
…
…
…
1


Anklets
…
…
…
prs. 1


Overalls
…
…
…
2
2
9
0

8
2
2
17
2


P.T. Kit set
…
…
…
1

10
4

1
7

11
11


Corps strips, rank badges and backing worsted rank badge for Battle Dress.

5
10

1
2

7
0


Cost of refitting Battle Dress
…
…
…
—
—
(estimated)













0
15
0





Totals
37
17
10
5
1
10
43
14
8

Pigeon Service

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the serious damage and loss to the pigeon service occasioned by birds being shot at in flight; and what steps he has taken to warn the public not to interfere with this essential part of the war effort?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the damage which is being done to the pigeon service by the shooting of pigeons in flight and am glad of this opportunity of drawing attention to the matter. Efforts have already been made, by a Press campaign, by a film sponsored by the Ministry of Information, by posters and by circulars sent from the Ministry of Information to all holders of game licences, to make the public aware of the importance of the matter and of the difference between carrier pigeons and wood pigeons.

Family Allowances

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the proposals submitted by the hon. Member for South-east Leeds for a system of stabilised family allowances

such as is already in existence in the case of dependants' allowances, and with what results?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I have considered the proposals submitted by my hon. and gallant Friend, and while they are attractive in many respects, I regret that it is impracticable to put them into effect in present circumstances.

Major Milner: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the expense would be very small, that the convenience would be very great, and that there would be an enormous saving of paper and man-power, and is it not the case that the objection that the proposal is not practicable is one from the Treasury?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not wish to dissociate myself from the Treasury. Dogs do not eat dog in this matter.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the British Red Cross


Prisoners of War Fund, which provides parcels of essential commodities such as razor blades, soap, socks, foodstuffs, etc., now find themselves in debt to the extent of about £500,000; and, to avoid our prisoners being dependent upon charity for their essential requirements and in order to make them a first charge on the nation, he will consult with the Treasury with a view to the cost incurred being a direct charge on the National Exchequer in place of being left to charity?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is misinformed as to the financial position of the War Organisation of the British Red Cross and Order of St. John, which, thanks to the continuing generosity of the public, is well able to meet all its liabilities.

Sir F. Sanderson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that prisoners of war will not suffer loss of parcels through lack of funds?

Sir J. Grigg: I can give a categorical pledge in answer to that question.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the feeling prevailing among the relatives of those serving men who were at Singapore; and will he give an assurance to them that they will be notified immediately word comes to the War Office of what has happened to them?

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continued anxiety felt by relatives of British officers and other ranks known to be missing in Malaya and Singapore, he can say what further information is now being supplied by the Japanese Government, through the Red Cross Society or otherwise, with regard to the British prisoners of war in their hands?

Sir J. Grigg: The Japanese have sent at intervals a few lists of names of those captured in Malaya and Singapore. The total so far received is only a small proportion of the total number captured. The lists come by short wave wireless from Tokyo to the International Red Cross. Committee at Geneva and from there are telegraphed to London. I am well aware of the anxiety felt and gladly give an assurance that next-of-kin are notified as soon as we have information.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the time spent as prisoners of war qualifies officers for promotion to a higher rank?

Sir J. Grigg: Where promotion is governed by time, time spent by an officer as a prisoner of war reckons for promotion as though he had been effective with his unit.

CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the response of the German Government to the decision announced by His Majesty's Government in December and actually carried into effect on 12th December to free all German prisoners from shackles; and whether, at the present time in any camp in Germany, British prisoners are subject to so-called reprisals by shackling, the imposition of a ban on correspondence or the withholding of parcels?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the matter of shackling. The restrictions on prisoners' mail have now been removed.

Sir A. Knox: Are we to understand that the shackling of our prisoners of war is still going on in camps in Germany?

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid that that is the case.

Sir A. Knox: If the reason is that the Germans object to some regulation that we have telling commanders to bind prisoners if necessary on the field of battle, surely we might give it up in order to allow our men to be free?

Sir J. Grigg: That seems to be an argument and not a question.

Sir A. Knox: Could we not ask the Protecting Power to arbitrate on the matter?

Mr. Sorensen: Seeing that this serious matter has been prolonged for many weeks, and even months, cannot we have a report about it on a near date?

Sir J. Grigg: The Government will make a statement to the House, I have no doubt, as soon as it is possible to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Marginal Land Cultivation (Committee's Report)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make available to Members of Parliament the Report of the Committee set up by him to investigate the question of marginal land cultivation?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): The Report in question was presented by a Committee presided over by a Departmental official and was prepared for a Cabinet Committee. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, propose its publication.

Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is very great interest in this question, and will it not raise suspicions that there is something that the Government wish to hide if the whole Report is not made available?

Mr. Chapman: I do not think that is the case, but I will bring my hon. Friend's observations to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Snadden: Can the hon. member say whether the extreme powers given to county committees were recommended in the Report?

Mr. Chapman: That is another question.

Whisky Storage

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of Whisky Storage by the Edinburgh and Glasgow Technical (Fire Prevention) Committees?

Mr. Chapman: The recommendations in the Report are in accordance with general policy which has been followed by the Regional Commissioner since the beginning of the dispersal scheme in June, 1940. The proprietors of the bonds concerned have been asked by the Regional Commissioner to carry out the recommendations in the Report relating to further dispersal or re-stowing of whisky stocks and to structural alterations. Air-raid shelters which are in dangerous positions have been closed.

Mr. Stewart: May I take it that the Regional Commissioner is to satisfy himself that these steps are, in fact, taken?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir.

Hill Sheep Farming (Committee's Report).

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to receive the report of the Committee he appointed last year, under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to inquire into the hill sheep farming industry in Scotland; and whether the report will be made available to hon. Members at an early date;
(2), whether he is aware that, while the hill sheep farmers of the Highlands appreciate the steps taken by the Government to help them over their difficulties by financial subsidies such as those granted each year since 1940, they feel this short-term policy of subsidies should be replaced by a long-term policy which would enable farmers to plan ahead with confidence; and whether he will take action on these lines to guarantee them a reasonable market for their produce?

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Frie1nd understands that the Hill Sheep Committee have practically completed the hearing of evidence but that it may be some time before they are in a position to report. Until he has received their recommendations he cannot make any statement as to the long-term measures which may be practicable and desirable to improve the position of hill sheep farming in Scotland. But my right hon. Friend fully agrees with my hon. and gallant Friend on the desirability of a long-term policy.

Major McCallum: Is the Minister aware that the issue of this Report is awaited in the Highlands of Scotland even more keenly than elsewhere, and may I ask that it should not be too long delayed?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, sir. My right hon. Friend would welcome this Report at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that the Committee is considering only post-war problems?

Mr. Chapman: The remit of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee asked in


effect for an indication of the basis on which a long-term policy might be framed.

Lime Supplies

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the extensive supplies of lime that can be obtained from the Island of Lismore; and whether, in view of the acute need for lime on the arable and sheep-farming lands of North Argyll and of the Government's policy of developing as many lime workings as possible in the Highland and Islands, he will consider reopening the Lismore workings when planning agricultural development in Scotland for the post-war years?

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Island of Lismore has useful lime deposits which it may be possible to develop in post-war years when transport will be more readily available. My right hon. Friend will certainly keep my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion before him.

ACCIDENTS AT MINES UNDER THE COAL MINES ACT IN THE YEARS 1939–1942:


—
Persons killed and cases of Injury*
Persons killed.


Number.
Rate per 1,000 employed.
Number.
Rate per 1,000 employed.


1939
…
…
134,855
171·3
783
1·0


1940
…
…
147,311
191·5
923
1·2


1941
…
…
159,370
220·6
925
1·3


1942 (Provisional)
…
…
†
†
863
†


* i.e., injuries involving more than 3 days' absence from work.


† Not yet available.

Underground Gasification.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Soviet scientists and mining experts, etc., and notably Professor I. Bardin, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Academy of Science, claim that the problem of the underground gasification of coal has been solved, and that, as a result of full-scale Government tests, begun in 1938, plants are now being worked successfully at Gorlovka, in the Donetz basin and at Lisiskansk, thus releasing underground miners and transport workers for other services above ground; and whether his Department has made experiments of this nature?

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Coal Mines (Accidents)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of accidents in and around coal mines for the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, respectively; how many were fatal; and the percentage of all accidents to the total employed for each year?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): In view of the number of figures involved, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Is there an increase or a decrease in the percentage of accidents of all kinds?

Major Lloyd George: I have not yet the figures of accidents for this year. A3 far as fatal casualties are concerned, there is a decrease by comparison with the year before, but I am afraid that I have not the figures for 1942 of the total accidents.

The information is as follows:

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether, in view of the continued unsatisfactory coal production, he has considered using subterranean gasification of coal?

Major Lloyd George: I have seen various reports on the work carried out in Russia on the underground gasification of coal, but the information available is not sufficiently complete to enable me to decide whether this process could, with advantage, be adopted in this country. I am accordingly making inquiries through the Soviet representatives in this country who have kindly arranged to communicate with their Government.

Coal Output and Man-Power

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the present position in regard to coal production and consumption and on the man-power position in the coalmines?

Major Lloyd George: Production during the three months before Christmas improved, and the improvement if continued on that scale, together with the maintenance of the recent level of savings in consumption, would enable the coal budget to be balanced. As regards man-power, I am glad to be able to inform the House that the number of men recruited into the industry, particularly those coming from other industries, has exceeded the expectations of last summer. The effect of the additional men has been largely to offset natural wastage in the past four months.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the considerable dissatisfaction at the slow progress made in providing means for the men at canteens, and will he take steps to accelerate it?

Major Lloyd George: I am fully aware of the matter, and I have done all I can. I will certainly continue to do so.

Mr. Kirkwood: From what industries have men been taken into the mines? It was stated that men had been obtained from other industries where they were free to go into the mines, and I would like to know what the industries were.

Major Lloyd George: That was done under the arrangement made last year, concerning men formerly connected with the mining industry who had gone into other industries at different times.

Medical Services

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made with the establishment of a medical service in the regions?

Major Lloyd George: A selected number of candidates from the long list of applicants for regional posts in the Mines Medical Service are being interviewed this week and appointments will be made as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Miners Welfare Commission, in consultation with the Ministry of Health and the district welfare committees, has been very actively engaged in the search for suitable buildings

for miners' rehabilitation centres. A centre in Scotland to accommodate 200 miners was opened on 11th January, and the rehabilitation centre at Berry Hill has been taken over by the Miners' Welfare Commission from the Mutual Indemnity Company. Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of buildings elsewhere and good progress is being made generally in the other work involved in setting up centres to cover all the chief coalfields.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the Minister aware that he can be congratulated upon finding so many doctors for this purpose, when the Minister of Pensions declares that he is unable to find doctors for his pensions tribunals?

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the Minister consider consulting the Central War Medical Services Committee as to the disposal of man-power in the Forces in making these appointments, so as not to choose people who ought to be called up for the Forces?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend can take this assurance from me, that we are in constant touch with all these authorities.

Dr. Haden Guest: How many doctors are being appointed?

Major Lloyd George: I think eight will be appointed in the regions and one at headquarters—nine altogether.

POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to the appointment of a Minister of National Development at an early date with the responsibility of examining and working out plans with local authorities and industry which will assure employment to members of His Majesty's Forces when returning to civilian life, as well as to those now employed on the manufacture of arms and munitions?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The problem of the resettlement in peace-time employment of persons demobilised from the Forces and from war industries is engaging the close attention of the several Departments concerned, under the general direction of the Ministerial Committee on Reconstruction Problems, presided over by my right hon.


and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio. I do not think the appointment of a further Minister is called for in this connection.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Would the Minister consider the issue of an interim report so that the Government may have the confidence of men who are now serving as to what their position will be when the war ends?

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly consider that point.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the position of the Government in this matter? Will they give the House, the country and the Services some indication before the war ends or is the matter to be left until immediately after the war?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, an indication will be given at the proper time.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is not the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act sufficient indication that these people will not be given a fair chance in the industry of the future?

ARMED FORCES (MAN-POWER)

Major Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changed and intensified conditions, he will consider the appointment of an inspector-general of man-power for each of the three Services, so as to ensure the more effective substitution, transference, and utilisation of man-power and economy of personnel?

Mr. Attlee: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend on the great and growing importance of this question, but I am not clear in what respect his proposal would improve on present arrangements. The appropriate members of the Board of Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council have, in their respective Services, the responsibilities he mentions, and as their problems differ so does their machinery for solving them.

Major Lyons: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the great wastage of man-power existing now, in the fourth year of the war, and whether he will take some action for each of these Services to deal with their particular problems? The wastage is enormous.

Mr. Attlee: Action has already been taken. There has been a very close review of the man-power problem in regard to all the Services.

Major Lyons: Can the right hon. Gentleman say briefly what, if anything, has been done in regard to the three great Fighting Services?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a Question down.

JEWISH REFUGEES (RELIEF)

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to take any measures for the relief of Jewish refugees on the Continent of Europe; and, if so, of what nature?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister what action has been taken pursuant to the declared policy of the Government in regard to the massacre of Jews, to remove obstacles to entry into Great Britain and the Colonies of such refugees as may be able to reach our shores on territory under our control?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to rescuing Jews seeking escape from Hitler and also reinforcing man-power for military service, industry and war production in Palestine, where a shortage of labour exists, it is intended to permit the immediate immigration into that country of an additional 50,000 Jews?

Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government's intention, in associating themselves with the Allied Governments' declaration of 17th December on the German policy of exterminating the Jews in Europe, was to help in arresting this policy. They are, at the same time, conscious of the fact that the only real remedy for the consistent Nazi policy of racial and religious persecution lies in an Allied victory; every resource of all the Allied nations must be bent towards this supreme object.
Measures for the rescue and relief of such refugees as succeed in escaping from German-occupied territory cannot be exclusively British, and His Majesty's Government are now engaged in consultations


with the other Governments most immediately concerned with a view to seeing what further measures it is possible to take, as soon as possible, to assist those who make their way to countries beyond German control. These consultations are necessarily confidential and it would not be in the interest of the refugees themselves to enter upon any discussion of them at the present juncture. His Majesty's Government's share in meeting this need has already been very substantial. They are, nevertheless, themselves working out certain practical proposals which they can make as a further contribution to this concerted effort by the United Nations.

Mr. Martin: While I thank my right hon. Friend, will he bear in mind the necessity and the urgency of speed in this matter?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the people of this country in this crisis will not be satisfied that the action to be taken by this country should be dependent upon the action of others, and that they will expect this Government to take any action it thinks fit because it is right, in the hope that that action will be an example and facilitate negotiations with other countries?

Mr. Attlee: If my hon. Friend will study my answer, I think he will see that the Government are not only working on plans of their own but are also taking steps with the other United Nations. I am sure he realises that the magnitude of this problem is such that it needs the work of more than one country.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it be possible to have some outline of the plans which may be arrived at by the United Nations at an early date?

Mr. Attlee: As I have pointed out, that would not be in the best interests of the refugees themselves.

OVERSEAS CROWN APPOINTMENTS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister how many appointments he has made to offices of profit under the Crown overseas from among hon. Members and

Members of the other House; and how many of those appointed were members of the Labour Party?

Mr. Attlee: Excluding members of His Majesty's Forces posted abroad, there have been 15 such appointments since the present Government took office. In addition, there have been three appointments as Ambassador, which is not technically regarded as an office of profit. Six of these 18 cases were from the other House and 12 from among hon. Members of this House. The Members selected were appointed on account of special qualifications for the duties involved. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None."

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend occasionally remind himself of some of the high qualifications of some of his Labour colleagues? Is it not invidious that out of 18 appointments in this and the other House not a single representative of the Labour Party has been regarded as fit to occupy a position abroad?

Mr. Attlee: I am always very conscious of the qualifications of my colleagues.

Mr. Shinwell: But will my right hon. Friend, being conscious of the high qualifications of his colleagues, direct the attention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to that fact?

MERCHANT NAVY (AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now give further consideration to the award of service decorations, such as the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal, to officers and men of the Merchant Navy who perform acts of gallantry or otherwise distinguish themselves in actions with the enemy at sea?

Mr. Attlee: Officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for Royal Navy Honours, Decorations and Medals for gallantry and distinguished service such as would earn similar awards for the Royal Navy.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Major Petherick: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting-up of a Royal Commission, to


begin work as soon as the war is over, in order to examine and report on the present structure and functions of local government?

Mr. Attlee: The question of what further investigation of the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers should be undertaken, when it should commence, and what form it should take are receiving consideration. I do not think that the procedure of setting up a Royal Commission now to begin work after the war would be a satisfactory one.

Major Petherick: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, in view of the considerable perturbation of the ancient boroughs in this Kingdom and also the rural district councils and other authorities, that no irrevocable step relating to the reform of local authorities in general will be taken without the fullest and most careful consideration being given to the views of those concerned?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend can be assured that in this matter the very fullest consideration will be given to the views of all concerned.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

Minister's Staff

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio what other examples there are besides that of Sir A. Hurst, in which a temporary official has been set to advise on long-term policy of national importance in regard to a matter affecting the interests by which he was formerly employed and from which he has not completely and permanently severed his connections?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to commercial interests. Among members of my staff only Sir Alfred Hurst could be held to come within the terms of the Question, and in his case I hope that my hon. Friend will have accepted the assurance I gave him on 17th November. As I then indicated, there is much advantage in arrangements of this kind, which are not uncommon, but my hon. Friend will not expect me to deal with particular cases in other departments.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio the number of officials with

salaries of £750 a year and upwards employed in his department on post-war problems of reconstruction?

Sir W. Jowitt: Five, Sir.

Short-term Policy

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether any post-war short-term policy is being planned to deal with demobilisation, employment, housing and finance; and what Ministers, commissions or committees are charged with these urgent tasks?

Sir W. Jowitt: All these matters are engaging the close attention of the Ministers directly responsible under the general co-ordination of the Ministerial Committee on Reconstruction Problems, of which I am Chairman. In the statement which I made to the House on 1st December I described the machinery for the study of reconstruction problems, and I do not think I can usefully add anything to that statement at present.

Sir I. Albery: Is it being borne in mind that the interim problems, despite the difficulties of the permanent problems, are even more urgent?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir.

Beveridge Report

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio what steps the Government propose to take to carry out the recommendations of the Beveridge Report?

Sir W. Jowitt: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made to the House on this matter on 1st December last. Consideration of the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge is being actively pursued but no conclusions have yet been reached.

Mr. Parker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the great majority of people in this country expect action from the Government on this Report in the near future, and will view unfavourably any undue weight to be given to the views of the insurance companies and other bodies?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir; there is no reason to suppose that the Government will not in the near future take whatever action they think proper.

Sir Percy Harris: Do the Government propose to introduce legislation this year to deal with the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge?

Sir W. Jowitt: I am not in a position to add to the answer I have already given.

Miss Rathbone: In considering those proposals of Sir William Beveridge do the Government consider that before they can be carried out there are prerequisites, such as family allowances?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it proposed to have any Debate in this House before the Government decide their attitude to the Report?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Radford: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether your attention has been called to the terms of Question No. 69 on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Norman Bower):
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in order to pave the way for the closest possible economic collaboration between Great Britain and Russia after the war, he intends to initiate in the near future any further discussions with the Soviet Government with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution of the Russian debt problem.
In view of their mischievous nature, will you take appropriate steps to see that that Question be removed from the Order Paper?

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that three weeks ago I sent in a Question regarding old age pensions to the Prime Minister. Word was sent back that it had been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the result that my Question appears on the Order Paper as No. 73. My point of Order is this: My Question is one of policy in relation to old age pensions. Policy is in the hands of the Prime Minister, not in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to know whether there is any way round that, because this is a question which is interesting the people of this country about as much as any question in relation to the war and everything else. Why should it be shifted aside in this fashion?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is unfortunate in that we have not reached

Question No. 73. We have not done so, because there have been many Supplementary Questions at great length, and replies at great length as well.

Mr. Kirkwood: While thanking you, Sir, for your reply, the fact remains that this is a question of policy. It may be a matter of finance, but it is a question of policy, and I am quite entitled to put it to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: A Minister is entitled to-answer a Question with regard to policy which affects his Department.

Mr. Radford: Arising out of the point of Order I raised, have you, Mr. Speaker had an opportunity of giving it consideration?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not.

Mr. Radford: The Question referred to debts owing by the Soviet Union to us. What are our debts to them for all they have done this past month?

WAR PRODUCTION PLANS

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I should like to take this, which' is the earliest, opportunity of making a short statement to the House about our war production plans for 1943, and particularly about certain developments taking place, which might otherwise lead to misunderstanding in industry and elsewhere. Nineteen forty-three will be a peak year in our war production; and the total labour force employed in the munitions industries during the year will considerably exceed the numbers employed in 1942. In order to obtain the additional labour force required and at the same time to satisfy the requirements of the Forces, there will have to be, by means of concentration or otherwise, further withdrawals of labour from the less essential industries and further mobilisation of women into industry, both for munitions work and as replacements for those transferred from the less essential industries. At the same time transfers of labour within the munition industries themselves must take place. In 1943 our plans demand that the increased emphasis should be placed on the manufacture of ships, of aircraft, of anti-U-boat devices, of tanks, and of certain specialised types of Army equipment. There are other types of equipment where the production


and the stocks which we have accumulated are already very great. In these cases we can afford, and it is necessary, to plan reductions in our programmes. In this way we shall achieve the requisite increase in output of weapons of all classes needed for maximum impact on the enemy during 1943.
Managers and workers who are affected by the changes in programmes which I have just described must realise that, notwithstanding any temporary dislocation that may occur, these changes are part of an ordered plan. If men and women find themselves being transferred to new work they will understand that it is because the new work is even more vitally important than that upon which they were previously engaged. If there is some temporary dislocation to management or to labour, the great and insistent demand for man and woman-power will quickly reabsorb them into new activities.
I would appeal to Members of this House, whose influence can be of so much importance in their constituencies, as well as to the managements of all companies, to give every assistance to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service in his difficult task, by explaining to their workpeople why the changes are necessary. If they are understood, doubt and uncertainty will not occur. In conclusion, I would emphasise that the number affected by these changes will, by comparison with the total number engaged, be small; for, as I have said, the coming year will be a peak year in our war production, and the total numbers employed as a whole will be much greater than in 1942. In short, while our plans necessitate certain changes in the production lines, the total volume of output must mount steadily. I am confident of our ability to achieve these objectives.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of informing the House more precisely as to the Government's intentions with regard to the production of tanks, and particularly tank engines, and has he anything to tell the House about his visit to the United States?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly take an early opportunity if one is offered to me.

Sir H. Williams: As it is proposed that we should discuss this matter in Secret

Session on the next two Sitting Days, and as the Minister has appealed to us to explain to our constituents what it is all about, shall we not be put into a very difficult position if we do not abandon the plan for a Secret Session? The vagueness of the Minister's statement passes comprehension. If it is to be explained in Secret Session, Members will be in an impossible position.

Mr. Lyttelton: The reason I made this statement is so that the information should be made public.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman elucidate further the question of whether these plans contemplate substantial transference of labour from one locality to another, or whether the reorganisation will take place only in the existing factories?

Mr. Lyttelton: There will be a certain transference from one part of the country to another; but the object, naturally, is to reduce that to a minimum. The transference to which I am referring is from one side of munitions production to another.

Mr. James Griffiths: As I gather that the proposals the Minister has outlined involve fairly substantial transfers of labour from one industry to another, might I ask whether that policy has been considered by the trade unions?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: And agreed?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Government, I think, must be the judges of what types of munitions are to be made; but the fullest consultation has taken place regarding these transfers, and every effort will be made to effect them with the least possible dislocation.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend repeat the assurance which he gave to the House before Christmas, that in the case of vital war industries the Minister of National Service would not remove men and women from the industries where the Supply Departments concerned stated that the production in those units was essential? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is a very vital point. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the assurance that he gave the House in previous circumstances, before Christmas, that the Minister of National Service will not remove from essential


war work men and women for transfer unless the Supply Department interested in the production of the undertaking concerned has been consulted and has confirmed the view that the change is in the national interest?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly, I can give that general assurance.

Sir Irving Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the workers readily make any sacrifice which is called for, provided that there is a proper measure of equality in the sacrifice, but that there are at present considerable grievances about transfer, in respect both of pay and of hours, and will he have that matter looked into?

Mr. Lyttelton: We have that particular point very much in mind. I am afraid there will occasionally be inequalities.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister asked Members of Parliament to use their influence in their constituencies, because, as he forecast, there was bound to be trouble when he started to shift men and women from one district to another. Is he aware that the Minister of Labour is introducing the opposite policy, of saying—and saying to me in particular time and again—"Do not interfere at all; leave it to the trade union movement." But I have settled disputes which the trade union movement have failed to check. What is the policy of the Government? Is it to allow themselves to be saddled with a dictatorship by the Minister of Labour, who is trying to push his cause? [Interruption.] I know what I am up against, and I am prepared to face even the Minister of Labour. This is a very serious business—very serious for me, because I have been a member of my trade union for 50 years, although not a paid trade union agitator. Is the policy of the Government the policy that the Minister of Labour tries to lay down, that Members of Parliament who are members of trade unions should not use their influence to get things put right? Is the Minister still in favour of our using the House of Commons, which I hope is still the most important body in this country? I will use it to fight for my class.

Mr. Lyttelton: On this matter I take a very simple view. The policy of the Government is to make the right weapons and at the same time to transfer labour with

as little disturbance as possible from one district to another. The statement which I have just read to the House was agreed upon with the Minister of Labour. It is a perfectly simple matter, and I asked Members of the House to explain in the country that, owing to the existence of stocks and so forth, some quite drastic changes in our production lines were about to take place.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated and the obvious effect which the Government's proposals will have upon the lives and occupations of a vast number of people in this country, may I ask him to consider, with the Leader of the House, whether it would not be in the public interest that the Debate on man-power, which will affect everybody in this country and is arousing wide interest, should take place in public instead of in Secret Session? May I also submit that it will be almost impossible for Members of Parliament, after hearing the Debate in secret, to answer questions from their constituents without, in some way, running the risk of appearing to disclose what has taken place in Secret Session?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): That, as my hon. Friend has put it, appears to be a matter for me. I am, of course, always ready to consider these things, and we did weigh these points very carefully before we took the decision to have the Debate in Secret Session. For the moment I would like to stand by that decision. I think we should have our Debate as arranged. I think the House would like to have information which can be given only in Secret Session. Naturally, I will consider meanwhile the points which have been raised and consult my colleagues about what has been said.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I put this point? This procedure which has been adopted rather prejudices the coming Debate. Would it not have been better in the circumstances, so as not to confuse the public mind, that whether the Debate was public or private, the statement of the Minister should have been made when the matter was before the House?

Mr. Eden: It is difficult for us to arrange these things successfully all round, and my right hon. Friend wished to give the House the earliest information—


information which he was, in any event, going to make public. I am afraid it is my fault, but I do encourage my colleagues to give the House the earliest information wherever that is possible.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very serious statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that some of us on this side of the House have already a Motion on the Paper showing that great alarm is being caused in connection with the distribution of foodstuffs in this country, and that shops have been denuded of workers to such an extent that there may be some difficulty in distributing food, because the Government assume all along the line that the greatest reservoir for man- and woman-power is the distributive trades?

Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister give us an assurance in connection with this development of policy that there will be no further draining of man- and woman-power from Scotland, in view of the heavy drain which has already been made on that country?

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. May I have an answer to my question, which is of great importance to Scotland? I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the circumstances of Scotland will be taken into account, in view of the big drain which is being made on man- and woman-power from Scotland?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can give no such general assurance, but I can assure the hon. Member that no unfair treatment will be meted out to Scotland and that all these cases will be very carefully considered.

Mr. Granville: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, if it is intended to send more workers to certain industrial towns of which he knows, will he take into consideration the fact that at present there is great overcrowding in these industrial areas; and will he communicate with the Minister of Health with a view to giving local billeting committees greater powers to enable them to make better billeting conditions?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. I rose to put a question, and you, Sir, called me, but I gave way because I understood that another hon. Member wished to raise a point of Order. Then you, Sir, declined to call me when I rose a second time. Does that mean that a point of Order can be used in order to prevent a Member who has already been called by you from putting his question?

Mr. Speaker: That does not appear to me to be a point of Order at all.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider whether he could not get much better results, not by transferring the workers but by transferring—[An HON. MEMBER: "The War?".]—control of firms to the men in a whole series of rotten managements that are in the industries at the present time?

Sir Adam Maitland: In the application of the proposals submitted to-day, will the Minister ask the production Departments in particular to approach the new arrangements in such a way as to avoid uncertainty as much as possible? Will he see that in the decisions made in connection with this arrangement the two factors of definiteness and certainty are brought into operation; and is he aware that if he does so, he will receive the co-operation not only of this House but of industrialists, both managements and employees?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot Debate the matter on this occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the business of the House?

Mr. Eden: I propose shortly to ask the House to go into Secret Session to enable me to make a short statement on Business. Afterwards, in public Session, a statement will be made on the war situation, and we shall then proceed with the Business already announced for to-day. As the House will remember, it is proposed to take the Second Readings of the Crown Lands Bill and the Police (Appeals) Bill. On the Second and Third Sitting Days, as at present arranged, there will be a Debate on man-power in Secret Session.

Sir A. Southby: Will the statement on the war situation be made on the Motion for the Adjournment and therefore be debatable, or will it be merely a Ministerial statement which will not be debatable?

Mr. Eden: I did not contemplate moving the Adjournment of the House. I think the general view of the House on these matters is that if we receive any kind of intimation that a Debate is called for, then it is always better that the statement should be made on the Motion for the Adjournment in order that such a Debate can take place. We have received no such intimation in this case, and I should be sorry to give up the right which exists of making statements to the House otherwise than on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir H. Williams: Surely my right hon. Friend was informed that there would be a request to have this statement made on the Motion for the Adjournment. It is quite impossible to tell in advance whether a statement will involve debate or not, and every statement which might conceivably involve debate should, therefore, be made on the Motion for the Adjournment. We have an absurd situation if the House has just to hear a statement made by a Minister without any debate upon it.

Mr. Eden: My own feeling is that I am ready to be guided by the House. I think we should be wrong if we were to change what has been the frequent practice—you, Mr. Speaker will correct me if I am wrong—of Ministers being able to make statements to the House from time to time. It is of value to the House that they should be able to do so. As Leader of the House, the line I would always take would be that, if I received any indication that there was likely to be a desire for debate, then naturally I would not wish to attempt to deprive the House of the right of debate, and I should take the necessary measures to see that the statement was made on a Motion for Adjournment. I think that the method we have hitherto adopted is the fairest method, and I should be sorry to depart from it.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not the case that this method of making statements has been used more frequently within the last year or two than ever before, and that it puts the Chair in a very difficult position?

A statement is made from that Box to which many Members may take exception, or in connection with which they may wish to clear up certain matters, and they can only do so by question and answer, which is an extremely limited way of getting information in the House, and the result is that an entirely false impression of what hon. Members think is created outside among the general public. Would it not be very much better to make statements on the Motion for the Adjournment, so that Members can make short speeches if they wish?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that I can really add very much to what I have said. I certainly have no desire to embarrass the Chair, and I was not conscious that I was doing so. We must really be guided by how we get on. If there were a feeling in this House that statements repeatedly made on the progress of the war could only be made on the Adjournment, I would have to take account of it. I think that the Leader of the House can surely be trusted to judge whether the feeling of the House is that they want to have a Debate or not. I have not had the slightest indication that anybody wants a Debate to-day, and so I propose to proceed as I have suggested.

Mr. Levy: May I ask my right hon. Friend how he can possibly receive an indication as to whether a Debate on a statement is required or not until such statement has been made?

Mr. Eden: I can assure my hon. Friend we have often had indications.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not the fact that if the Government realise that every statement they make will be the subject of debate, the House will be deprived of a large number of voluntary statements in the future, and therefore we should be ill-advised to press the right hon. Gentleman too far?

Commander Bower: Have we not had a very good example in the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Production, and would it not have been very much better if it had been made on a Motion? Is it not a matter for this House in this Chamber to decide whether it wants to have a statement on a Motion or not? It should be expected that a statement is always made on a Motion and that only in exceptional circumstances should it be made without.

Captain Duncan: Mr. Speaker, would it not be very much better and of assistance to you to go back to the old system of the Private Notice Question, so that there would be an opportunity for you to consider what a statement contained and whether it would be a good thing to address a Private Notice Question or not?

Mr. Speaker: We have that system still in operation.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he will give time for a discussion of the present critical position of the School of Oriental and African Studies of London University, in view of the extreme urgency occasioned by the preparations now in progress to evict the School from its present building, the removal from which the School feels would irretrievably injure its work?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot undertake here and now to give time. I have been consulting about the matter with some of my right hon. Friends, and I am hopeful that some arrangement can be arrived at which may be satisfactory to those concerned. Personally, I take an interest in this matter myself, and I think we should try and do what we can. At the same time, the House must also understand that my right Hon. Friend the Minister in charge has an extremely difficult task in making these allocations.

Sir E. Graham-Little: While I appreciate this very sympathetic answer, I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that this matter is of exceptional importance to the constituency that I represent, and I therefore give notice that I propose to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: May I ask my right hon. Friend when it will be possible for the Government to make a statement with regard to the question of the shackling of prisoners? It is now over a month since a statement was made. I understand that we heard to-day in reply to a Question that our prisoners are still being shackled in Germany, and the House ought to know what the position is and what prospect there is of improvement.

Mr. Eden: I fully understand the desire of the House to know about that matter. The only reason why a statement has not been made before is that we desire to do

everything we can through the Protecting Power and not to injure any prospects that there might be of improvement. I would anticipate, therefore, that a statement will probably be made very soon indeed.

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible for the Protecting Power to arbitrate on the question?

Mr. W. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House when he thinks it may be possible for the House to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure on the Organisation and Control of the Civil Service?

Mr. Eden: I hope that it will be at a very early Sitting, but I cannot actually fix the day.

MR. LLOYD GEORGgE'S 80TH BIRTHDAY

Mr. Eden: The House will feel that we cannot this day pass to our ordinary Business without taking note of an event which marks for this House a historic and an intimately personal occasion. On behalf of every hon. Member of this House I offer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd Georgge) our congratulations and our heartfelt wishes on his 8oth birthday. This is no time to attempt a detailed review of his services. They are world wide, and they were rendered to mankind. To-day we salute him not only as the dominant statesman of his generation, not only as the man who led this country through a period of storm and stress like unto that through which we now strive, but, more than all these things, we salute him as a great House of Commons man. For over half-a-century he has been a champion in our midst. Neither his courage nor his resilience has ever failed him. He has needed both, because he has given hard blows and taken them. To-day we regard him with pride and with affection, and we, each one of us, hope that he will be spared for many years to teach us wisdom, to guide us and, if need be, to drive us along the path that we should tread.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lloyd Georgge: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations and for his felicitations. I thank him all the more because I was not given any notice


of his intention. It is very kind of him to have made these observations, and I thank him for them. I also thank my fellow Members of the House of Commons for the reception which they have afforded me to-day. Among all my recollections of the last 80 years there is none of which I am prouder than the fact that I have for 53 years been a Member of this honoured and this great Assembly. I thank the House of Commons and the right hon. Gentleman too.

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

Sir Dennis Herbert's Resignation

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the assent of the House, I have a brief statement to make. As the Chairman of Ways and Means and Chairman of Committees, and being an officer of the House elected by the House, it is to the House that I should submit, as I now do, my resignation of that post. I should like first of all to dispose of one, fortunately mistaken, idea which has got into the Press in some quarters, namely, that I am doing this on the ground of ill-health. It is true that I had a bad illness not long ago, but if the House will pardon this personal matter, I am glad to be able to say that my doctor tells me that there is no reason of that kind why I should not continue in the exacting post which I have held, and I hope I may have a further useful time yet in the future.
But there may be various reasons, some good, some less good, why I should take this course. One reason if good and sufficient is all that is required, and that one reason I venture to give—the one which has weighed with me. The history of the House of Commons has been one of constant change over the centuries. At this time of world upheaval and, we hope, of subsequent reconstruction, there must be big changes in the near future in the methods and procedure of the House, and in those changes, if I am not mistaken, two matters will be particularly affected—one the procedure in Committees of the Whole House, including the Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means, and the other in the arrangements regarding Private Bill legislation, which, as the House will recollect, is practically in the management of the Chairman of

Ways and Means. Those changes must take time, and, fit as I may feel at the present time, I should not be justified, and the House would not feel justified, in feeling confident that I should be equally fit to go on with that work until those changes are completed. It is highly undesirable that when changes of that kind are in progress one of the persons principally concerned should suddenly become unable or inefficient to carry on that work. Under those circumstances the House, I feel, would be very well advised to find as a Chairman a Member who can, with greater confidence than in my case, be regarded as likely to see all those changes completed. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister permits me to say that the course I am adopting has his approval.
There remains one duty for me to do, and that is to express my gratitude to the House for their kindness to me during the whole of the time I have held this office. It has been particularly pleasing to me that among some of my best friends in the House are some of those to whom I have been most deaf, most blind, or whose eloquent speeches I have been obliged to torpedo at their first start. It shows the general good nature and good will which have always been a distinguishing feature of this House, and I am grateful. Mr. Speaker, if I may say so with respect, I could not have served under anyone more pleasing to serve under than yourself, and I must mention, too, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown), who, as I think the House will agree, has justified most thoroughly the choice which was made when our late good friend Captain Bourne left us. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House, and I am grateful to them for having listened to me.

Mr. Attlee: I am sure the whole House will have heard with regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Sir Dennis Herbert) will no longer preside over our deliberations and will desire to thank him for the long and devoted service which he has rendered to this House. For more than 12 years now he has carried out with distinction and impartiality the duties of his high office. The Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy-Speaker has, as we all know, much work besides that of presiding in the House and in Committee. In particular,


he has great responsibilities in connection with Private Bill legislation, especially in peace-time. In peace-time that alone is a heavy task. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman has presided over two very important Committees—that of Offices of Profit under the Crown and that on the Disposal and Custody of Documents. In all these activities his wise knowledge of procedure, his fair-mindedness and his accessibility have won him the esteem and, I think, the affection of this House. In this House the occupant of the Chair must have something more than knowledge of procedure. He must have a knowledge of human nature and human understanding, not only of formalities, but of the atmosphere of this House. Many Members in the course of Debate have from time to time been pulled up, as I have, by our Chairman of Ways and Means, but despite his difficult duties the right hon. Gentleman has always managed to retain the friendship of Members in all parts of the House. I am sure we shall all wish our retiring Chairman of Ways and Means a full measure of health and strength, so that he may for a long time in other capacities continue his services to his country.

Mr. Greenwood: On behalf of Members outside the Government circle, may I add my word of tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who is relinquishing his very high office? I speak as one who has been oftener in Opposition than in office, and in earlier days on many occasions I was seriously admonished by the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt for my own Parliamentary good, and I have no complaint to make. I am very glad that, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's retirement from his great office, his political wisdom and Parliamentary experience are not to be lost to Parliamentary life, and I am sure all Members of the House will wish him a long and happy future.

Sir P. Harris: May I add a very few words of thanks, as a personal friend and on behalf of my hon. Friends, for the loyal and devoted service which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford has given to the House of Commons? He is a great House of Commons man and also a great master of procedure. I do not think it is realised by all hon. Members what a terrific amount of work is involved in holding the office of

Chairman of Ways and Means. That work is by no means limited to work in the Chair; it requires an immense study of Bills and of legislation and of all the, details of procedure. My right hon. Friend has been a fine guardian of the best traditions of the House of Commons, and he has shown the greatest possible impartiality. I know he will not mind my saying that I regard him as a good Tory, but whatever his political opinions, he has never shown bias or partisanship in the great office of Chairman of Ways and Means. I hope he will be long spared to give the advantage of his wide experience to work as a Private Member in the House.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)

Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection that they had added the following Member to the Panel of Members to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills: Professor Savory.

Report to he upon the Table.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1942 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 34.]

VOTE OF CREDIT, 1943 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March,


1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 35.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

CONSOLIDATION BILLS

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

WAR SITUATION

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Rather more than two months ago, on Armistice Day, the Prime Minister gave the House a full statement on the war situation following on the great events in Libya and North Africa. I do not propose to-day to deal in any detail with the events of the past two months, but I am sure that the House at its first meeting in the New Year will wish to have an opportunity of paying its tribute to those who, on sea, on land and in the air, in so many theatres of war have been fighting so valiantly in our common cause. Although during these last two months there has been nothing so dramatically unexpected as the landings in North Africa, we can view the close of the year 1942 with, I think, sober satisfaction and look forward to 1943 with justifiable confidence. Looking back, what a striking contrast there is between this fourth January of the war and its predecessors. Everywhere to-day the initiative has passed into the hands of the United Nations.
I think it is right that in any review of the war we should give pride of place to the wonderful achievements of the Russian Armies. It is difficult to realise that when the Prime Minister gave his review the German tide of advance was" still threatening Stalingrad. Nine days later the main Russian offensive started in the South with blows on every side of the German salient, and since then, right up to the present time, blow has followed blow, attack has followed attack. The German attempt to relieve the Sixth army, which has been cut off, has utterly failed, and it looks as if in all probability none of that great force will escape from the trap. Meanwhile, the advance continues. Sweeping down towards Rostov


it is rolling up the right flank of the Germans in the Caucasus, while away to the north, at Leningrad, Veliki Luki and Voronezh, renewed blows are being delivered. It is difficult to keep up to date with these movements. To-day we learn that a land contact has been established between the main Russian forces and the garrison at Leningrad, raising the siege. It is remarkable how little we have heard of that remarkable resistance of Leningrad. The Russians to-day report that the Donetz has been crossed opposite the Voronezh-Rostov railway at Kamenskaya. It is a remarkable feat maintaining an offensive on a 200-mile front in the South, as deep sometimes as 180 miles, in winter, on such terrain and with very sparse communications. It will surely take its place in history as an outstanding achievement. I have often heard it said that the Russians are very good fighters and very brave but that they are no good at organisation and are incapable of staff work. That is absolute nonsense, as has been proved. Every Member who recalls a speech made by the Prime Minister in which he showed the immense amount of preparation and work which are required to stage a great offensive, will realise what lies behind these great victories.
I will turn to North Africa. I know that there has been some impatience at the pause in the operation of driving the Axis from Libya, but in the last few days the Rommel record retreat has begun again. It is really unreasonable to expect that in campaigns fought over great distances in practically desert country it should be possible to continue indefinitely an advance. There is a certain rhythm in warfare in these areas. The spring is coiled, the blow is struck, and then the spring must be recoiled before the next stroke is possible. I think that the House realised two months ago the magnitude of the preparations that rendered possible not merely that stroke at El Alamein but the follow-through. That follow-through came right up to the El Agheila position, a difficult position to attack, but the threat was so strong that the El Agheila position was evacuated, and the enemy were badly mauled in trying to get away. It is difficult to bring about the complete destruction of a highly mobile force, but heavy losses were inflicted. Then came the inevitable wait. The enemy went back to Buerat. We had to bring up our

forces. The spring was recoiled. On Friday General Montgomery struck again. The enemy is retreating. Our advance is at the rate of about a mile every hour. We cannot tell where he will elect to stand. Our troops are already in Misurata. Our objective is the total destruction of the enemy forces in North Africa. The time will come when there is nowhere further for him to go. I should like to note here the vigorous action of that small mobile column of the Free French operating across hundreds of miles of desert from the Chad area. In a short time they have mopped up all the garrisons in Fezzan.
I suppose to most of us who took part in the last war the outstanding thing that strikes us is the extraordinary difference in scale of the operations then and now. We used to talk in hundreds of yards. An advance of a mile or two was something tremendous. The Eighth Army is now over 1,000 miles from the start. That is taking it as the crow flies. If El Alamein is taken as London, El Agheila is Cape Wrath in the far North of Scotland, while Tripoli is far away in Iceland. In Tunisia, too, there has been a lull, and there, again, that has naturally caused some disappointment, but I think the House should recall three things. First, again the great distances—I need not stress that. Secondly, the weather, which has made movement practically impossible off the roads, both for tanks and for wheeled vehicles, and has very seriously affected the provision of air fields and thus the effectiveness of our Air Force. Thirdly, there is the fact that the very speed of our initial advance, the success of this landing, has made people tend to expect that the same rate of advance could be kept up. There, again, when you land on a shore to work ahead you have to pile up munitions and supplies, and in this fight for what is known as the "Tunis tip" the enemy has now very short communications and ours are very long. We have every confidence in General Eisenhower, General Anderson and the men of the Allied Forces in Tunisia. There has been a lot of hard fighting, and there have been many very gallant incidents, such as those of the Hampshires at Tebourba and of the Guards at Medjez, which have been fully recounted in the Press, and I know that everyone there is co-operating—United States, British and


French—under an American general, General Eisenhower. In this area Malta, which only a few weeks ago was in such mortal danger has been resupplied and is more than ever a thorn in the side of the enemy. In all these activities in that Mediterranean area, the Air Force, Navy and Army have been working closely together.
To turn for a moment from the military to the political side, the French civil authorities are co-operating fully with the Allied Forces, just as the French troops are fighting alongside ours in Tunisia. There has been some discussion, more I think in the American Press than in our own, of alleged differences between ourselves and the Americans about North Africa. Well, I think it is natural that French affairs should not always appear in the same light to us in this country and to the Americans. After all, we were nearer the crisis of 1940, which presented an immediate and mortal danger to us before the United States were in the war. But such variations of outlook, though they have their effects, ought not to be exaggerated. His Majesty's Government fully appreciated the advantage of the maintenance by the United States Government of relations with the Government of Marshal Pétain. We recognise that the contacts that were established there were of advantage while they lasted, and they actually bore fruit at the time of the North African operation. The political preparations in Algiers and Morocco were a very important part of that operation and contributed to its rapid success. The collaboration between the American and British Staffs during the preparation and conduct of that great military operation was intimate and cordial, and a spirit of greatest harmony continues between the British and American members of General Eisenhower's General Staff. I think that is a good augury for future operations.
In the political field, the two Governments have for the future a single objective, which is to promote the union of all Frenchmen in the war against the Axis for the liberation of France. In order to help towards this, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) has been appointed Minister Resident at Allied Headquarters in North-West Africa. His function is to report on the political situation and future plans in French North Africa and to represent to

the Commander-in-Chief the views of His Majesty's Government on political matters. I am glad to say that he has been cordially welcomed by General Eisenhower, who is already working in closest collaboration with him and with President Roosevelt's representative on the Commander-in-Chief's staff, Mr. Murphy. It is our hope that all those who are charged with administration in the various parts of the French Empire will allow no secondary or personal considerations to stand in the way of the fraternal union for the redemption of France which France herself and the United Nations earnestly desire to see, We welcome the appointment of General Giraud as High Commissioner in North Africa and are glad that the British Forces should be associated in comradeship with French forces under his command. We are all under a great debt to General de Gaulle for his bold and uncompromising reassertion of French resistance; and for ourselves, we look forward to the day, and we will do our best to hasten it, when the whole French Empire and those steadfast and heroic forces of resistance in France itself, gathered round a single authority on French soil, can join in a common effort with the United Nations to break down the power of the enemy and achieve the liberation of France.
Before leaving this theatre of war, which is so wide flung, I would like to notice two encouraging things. The Iraq Government have declared war upon Germany, Italy and Japan. After the last war we set Iraq on the path of independence and it is naturally gratifying that of her own free will the Iraq Government decided to join actively in the struggle against aggression. On 28th December French Somaliland rallied to the United Nations as a part of Fighting France. Meanwhile, at the other side of Africa, the Government of French West Africa, as the result of an agreement made by General Eisenhower and the late Admiral Darlan and M. Boisson, has joined with French North Africa in full co-operation with the United Nations.
To turn to the Pacific area, the Japanese advance there has been successfully held. In New Guinea, in spite of the absolutely appalling difficulties of climate in that country, the Japanese at the Eastern end of the island have been forced back from Kokoda and by the joint action of American and Australian forces have been reduced to a very small handful in Sanander.


In fact, I have seen that those forces in Sanander have been destroyed. The fighting has been stubborn and hard on both sides, and General MacArthur and his troops have very well earned their success. Meanwhile, 300 miles away to the East the United States Forces on Guadalcanal have continued to improve their position. At one time we were most anxious about that position, but in vigorous naval and air actions heavy losses have been inflicted on the enemy. Three attempts in the last month to reinforce and supply the Japanese troops by surface craft were actually defeated and the Japanese were forced to turn away. But we shall be wrong to minimise the dangers that still exist in the Far East. We have got a very determined and a highly skilful enemy, but we can surely see, everyone of us, the great difference in the position in the Far East since a year ago.
In Burma, too, the initiative has changed. Along the coastal strip Field Marshal Wavell's forces are advancing towards Akyab. There again the country is very difficult, with very few and primitive communications. Good progress is being made, and our troops are being welcomed back by the people of the country, who have given them every help.

Mr. Purbrick: Before he leaves that point, could the right hon. Gentleman give us any information regarding the reported accumulation of large Japanese forces which are said to be threatening Australia, to which Mr. Curtin, the Australian Prime Minister, has referred?

Mr. Attlee: We are conscious that there are forces at Rabaul, and the United Nations are taking every step to deal with that situation. When I said that we must remember the dangers in that area it was in my mind that there was this accumulation. There has been no spectacular development in the Chinese war, but our Allies continue to offer stubborn resistance to the attempts of the enemy to extend the area of their occupation. We are doing all we can to get supplies through. I am sure that everyone will send his good wishes to the Chinese people, who have put up such a struggle for so many years. In the political field, our recent Treaty for the relinquishment of extra-territorial rights marks the beginning of a new, and I think a happier, relationship between

our two countries. It is another side of our close co-operation with the United States that Treaties between the United States and China and between ourselves and China in almost identical terms were signed on the same day. I am sure that the visit of the Parliamentary Mission to China will have proved to have been of very great service in strengthening the personal friendship between the two nations.
I turn for a moment to the war at sea. As in the last war, so in this, the U-boat constitutes a menace of the first magnitude, and, as in the last war, there is no short and simple way to defeat it. We have to rely on the cumulative effect of a large number of counter-measures. It is worth remembering that naval warfare has never been a series of fleet actions. The war at sea in the Napoleonic wars continued for years after Trafalgar. It is less so than ever to-day; it is a continuous battle of little ships and relatively small forces going on all the time, and the prizes of battle are the safe arrival of our ships and the destruction of enemy craft. I know that the House is well aware of the importance of communications, not only to us, but to our Allies, and that we all feel what we owe to the skill, endurance and heroism of the men of the merchant ships and their naval and air escorts. This fight is going on day and night all over the ocean highways, but it is only occasionally that some notable event focuses attention on this continuous service of devotion.
There was the event not long ago, the running of the Malta convoy, and we had another in the last few days of the old year, when an action was fought between our own Forces and the very much superior force of German vessels. That story we had in the Press. This notable action in defence of British and American convoys to Russia, fought in the twilight amid the snowstorms of Northern winter, throws a flashlight on another of the achievements of the Navy in the maintenance of the food supplies of our Allies. In spite of the enormously superior enemy Forces, the convoy arrived safely at its destination unscathed.
As at sea, so in the air; the war goes on continuously without anything very spectacular. Throughout the Libyan campaign, the overwhelming superiority in the air established against Rommel has


been maintained, and it is worth noting the work that has been done by the ground staff amid tremendous difficulties in bringing forward airfields and services. The Forces of our Allies and of the R.A.F. in Malta have been continuously at it, attacking enemy transport vessels; airfields and ports. A series of raids on Genoa, Turin, Milan and other towns has played havoc with the industries and communications in Northern Italy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Keep it up."] We can tell the effect from the fact that Mussolini has had to issue an order withdrawing all but essential personnel from Italian cities, while there is constant attack on the ports and airfields in Sicily and Southern Italy.
In the home field-our bombers' efforts over Germany and the industrial centres of the occupied territories have not stood still. We have had a series of very bad weather conditions over the last two months, but, despite that fact, there was not a day during November and December on which our bombers were not out. During this month there have been very notable attacks on Essen, Lorient and other targets. During the last two days, in London, we heard the sirens again. We had not heard them for some time, and that was because Berlin had also had its air raids, in two very heavy attacks, delivered, I believe, with very great effect. We shall continue to press on with these bomber attacks, concentrating always on those targets that are most effective for bringing the enemy down.
I cannot close this statement on the war situation without recalling to the House the terrible conditions which are being endured by all the peoples in Europe who come under the power of Hitler. As the Nazis' hopes for victory fade, and as they feel the tide of hatred rising against them everywhere, they wreak their vengeance on those who cannot defend themselves. They seem to think that by employing every kind of atrocity they can suppress the hopes that are growing daily in the breasts of all the oppressed people; but all the evidence goes to show that they cannot kill the spirit of freedom and the spirit of resistance. I think there is a need for us to recall what is actually happening. We are apt to have our sensibilities blunted by the mere constant repetition of deeds, any one of which, in happier days, would

have caused a thrill of horror throughout the world. The Jews have always suffered in this way for the sins of the Nazis. We know what forms those sufferings have lately taken. One of the most striking features of Hitler's New Year message to the German people was his hysterical ravings against the Jews. That is a sure sign that all is not well in Germany.
But the Jews are by no means the only scapegoats; all the peoples of Europe are at Hitler's mercy—if he has any mercy. All can foe made to suffer when things are going wrong, and all have suffered in that way. The immensity of their sufferings is the measure of Hitler's difficulties. That blow has fallen with particular harshness on the gallant Polish nation. Ever since the German occupation of Poland, the German authorities have pursued a deliberate policy of reducing the Polish people to slavery, of removing their leaders from all positions of authority and of influence and of dispossessing the peasants of their land. Recent reports received by the Polish Government indicate that the Nazi tyranny has been greatly intensified. Last month it was learned that Germany had undertaken the systematic expulsion and deportation of the Polish population, attended by mass executions, in another large area.
During the last few days, the Polish Government have received reports of a new series of arrest on a large scale in Warsaw itself. These tyrannical measures are not just arbitrary outbreaks of tyranny but are part of a policy deliberately organised by the German Government, and they bear witness to the gallant resistance of the Polish people. I think they are the surest possible sign of the state of nerves to which the German authorities have been reduced by recent events and of anxiety regarding developments on their Eastern Front. They have not passed unnoticed. The sufferings of the Polish people must be and will be requited. With every day that passes, our power to strike back at the oppressors is increasing. The recent raids on Berlin have shown our ability to deal heavy blows at the very heart of the enemy's strength. I trust that the knowledge of these blows will bring courage to our Allies and will hasten their deliverance from their present martyrdom. I cannot tell what lies ahead in the year 1943, but we must not allow any succcesses to cause


us to relax or to underrate the dangers and difficulties that still await us. But the House may rest assured that it is the resolve of His Majesty's Government during 1943, in the closest co-operation with our Allies of the United Nations, to strike at the enemy by land, by sea, by air, everywhere, with the utmost vigour and determination.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask one question before the right hon. Gentleman sits down? Can he give the House an assurance that at the present time absolute priority is being given to the protection of the Merchant Navy at sea, both in regard to ships and aircraft?

Mr. Attlee: Every possible step is being taken to that end.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Leader of the House whether it would be possible for this House to send a message to the people of Leningrad, expressing the hope that their freedom, after 17 months of being encircled, will only be the preliminary to the speedy freeing of the other encircled peoples of Europe?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am sure the hon. Member is expressing the sentiments of every Member in this House in what he says.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the thrill of horror caused by Nazi atrocities, but is it not a fact that these atrocities have been going on since 1933, and is it not rather unfortunate the British Government concealed so effectively until 1939 the thrill of horror which it no doubt felt?

Mr. Attlee: I can only answer for this Government.

Mr. Tinker: My right hon. Friend spoke of the submarine menace. Could any opportunity be provided to tell us in Secret Session what is happening? One thing that is upsetting the mind of the people is what is happening at sea. No one seems to know the facts. Is it possible to get a statement in Secret Session, so that Members at least may know?

Mr. Attlee: We will certainly consider that. I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Dr. Haden Guest: Can the right hon. Gentleman add anything about the political side of the North African situation, as to whether he is satisfied, with regard to the legislation against the Jews and the internment of numerous persons arrested by the Vichy regime, that these problems are on the way to early liquidation?

Mr. Attlee: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that very great progress is being made there, and I believe we are on the way to solving these problems.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the terrible atrocities taking place abroad, and the determination of this country that the perpetrators shall be, at some future date, punished. Are steps being taken with other countries, any negotiations, with regard to the extradition laws so as to see that it is not possible for any of these people to get away from the authority and justice which we hope will overtake them?

Mr. Attlee: That is a complicated matter which is under very careful consideration. We are considering how to deal with it.

Mr. Cluse: As we are, after all; in control of Palestine, cannot we ease the immigration arrangements for the quota so that a larger number can go into Palestine?

Mr. Attlee: A reply was given in the House on that subject. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at that.

Orders of the Day — CROWN LANDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill, the purpose of which will be apparent to everyone at a glance. That purpose is to include the representative of Scotland in the body of Commissioners


entrusted with the administration of Crown lands in Great Britain. In order that hon. Members may better understand the circumstances in which this proposal is being put forward at the present time, and more particularly the reasons for making the proposal in the form that has been adopted in this Bill, I think I might perhaps devote a few minutes to giving some historical background. Hon. Members may recall that from the time of King George III arrangements have been in operation whereby at the beginning of each reign the hereditary estates of the Crown are handed over to the executive Government in return for the fixed income secured by the Civil List. When that arrangement was first made the authority entrusted with the administration of the Crown lands were the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues in England and Wales, and in Scotland they were the Scottish Court of Exchequer. In 1832 the Office of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues was amalgamated with the Office of His Majesty's Surveyor-General of Works and Buildings, and a body of three Commissioners was constituted, one of whom, one only, was to be entitled to sit in the House of Commons. At the same time opportunity was taken to transfer from the Scottish Court of Exchequer to the new body of Commissioners the administration of Crown lands in Scotland.
That arrangement continued from 1832 to 1851, but about that time a feeling began to grow up that Crown lands were becoming too much the instrument of Government policy, and in particular that the authority for Crown lands was being used in such a way as to evade the control of the House of Commons. Lord John Russell went so far as to say that a very considerable public evil was arising in that way, and it was accordingly decided to transfer the control of Crown lands to a body of two non-political Commissioners, neither of whom was entitled to sit in the House of Commons. That arrangement went on until 1906, by which time, as often happens in these cases, the pendulum had swung in the other direction, and complaint was then made that the administration of the Crown lands was too remote from public policy and, in particular, from agricultural policy. As the

spokesman of the Government at that time put it, there was a desire to secure a more progressive and enlightened administration, and with that object in view the Commissioners were again reconstituted. This time the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was made ex officio a Commissioner and became answerable in the House of Commons for the Office of Woods and Forests, as it was then called. Hence the present difficulty after nearly 40 years, because in 1906, when the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as he then was, was made a Commissioner, his official jurisdiction extended throughout Great Britain. It was not until 1911 that a separate Department of Agriculture for Scotland was established.
The point might have been taken at that time that there was an obvious anomaly in leaving the English Minister of Agriculture still the Commissioner of Crown Lands for England and Scotland. That point, however, was not taken. It was not until the anomaly came into prominence as the result of the Commissioners having acquired a substantial area of agricultural land in Scotland by purchase, in the form of the Richmond and Gordon estate, that the existing arrangement was called in question. It is clear that the undoubted anomaly has only to be brought into prominence for it to call for adjustment. We have decided in this Bill to meet the case, and we think we do meet it, by the very simple device of adding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose responsibilities include agriculture in Scotland, to the Board of Commissioners. He will have a seat on the Board, like his English colleague.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that mean the Secretary of State personally; and that he will not be able to delegate the duties to somebody else?

Sir J. Anderson: The Secretary of State personally. The responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland will not be extended at all. It will be served by the organisation of the Crown Lands Office. It might be, and was in fact, I believe, suggested that an alternative would be to divide up the administration and to have a separate office for Crown Lands in Scotland. We came to


the conclusion, although that suggestion had superficial attractions to Scotsmen, that any attempt to identify the administration of Crown Lands with the administration of agricultural policy directly, either in Scotland or in England and Wales, would be wrong. This is a trust, and the trustees have definite obligations. The adding of the Secretary of State was designed to ensure that an enlightened policy would be followed by the Commissioners, in their proper capacity as Commissioners. It was not designed to subordinate the administration of the Crown Lands to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. The Secretary of State will come upon the Commission in his personal capacity.

Mr. Stephen: I notice that the first Clause says that nothing in the Bill shall authorise the payment of salaries to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is there anything which authorises the payment of a salary to the Minister of Agriculture as a member of the Board?

Sir J. Anderson: No. This puts the Secretary of State for Scotland in exactly the same position as the Minister of Agriculture in England.

Mr. Kirkwood: They are doing something for nothing.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, this is in accordance with the highest traditions of public affairs. Technically, the Commissioners are a body corporate, and everything done by them will be done in the name of the Commissioners as a body, but I have no doubt that questions which have a special interest to Scotland will in a special degree attract the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his capacity as a Commissioner.

Major McCallum: My constituents have particular reason to appreciate this Bill, in view of the announcement last week of the gift to the nation of a large area in the North of Argyll, a very beautiful part of my constituency. We feel that it is the right procedure for the Secretary of State for Scotland, or some representative of Scotland, to be added as one of the Commissioners. For that reason, the Bill will give great satisfaction in my constituency.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I also welcome the Bill, because it brings under partial Scottish control something which should be under complete Scottish control, but I was not altogether satisfied with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider there were too many safeguards, too many precautionary measures, too many things to hold back the Secretary of State for Scotland from exercising the intuitions—not of the kind that Hitler has—which I consider he possesses, and also from using his energy in developing the Crown lands in Scotland in such a manner as the Scottish people would desire. I understand, from the Minister's explanation, that we are merely adding a Scottish Commissioner; in other words the Crown lands are not actually passing under the control of a Scottish Secretary. They will continue under the control of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but there will be an extra Commissioner from Scotland. I am certain that that is not what the Scottish people want; and I am disappointed. Control remains in England, but one voice is added to the Commissioners to protest against anything which they want to do in Scotland. However, we welcome the fact that we are getting such a voice, and I am certain that while the present Secretary of State holds office he will not remain silent if anything is done to which he objects, and that it will take a majority vote to prevent him getting what he desires. There is another matter which comes closely akin to this matter, and which affects the Scottish people. The Forestry Commission is run in the same manner.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): We are not discussing all the affairs of Scotland now.

Mr. Maclean: No; I should think my country a very poor one if all its affairs were enclosed within the operations of the Commissioners of Crown Lands and of the Forestry Commission. But the work of the Forestry Commission is akin to that of the Crown Lands Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Forestry Commission is not part of the Crown Lands Commission.

Mr. Maclean: No, but I can show how these Crown lands are going to be run with the Forestry Commission. Practically 50 per cent. of the land owned and run


by the Forestry Commission lies in Scotland. There are three Members of Parliament representing this House on the Forestry Commission, and not one is a Scotsman. Only a few weeks ago two new Members were appointed, and neither was a Scotsman. I want to know why it is that when bodies are appointed to control institutions for the entire country it is only by dint of pressure on the part of Scottish Members here that we get the smallest concession. The Forestry Com-missioners are in a different atmosphere and on a different plane altogether from the Crown Lands of Scotland, but I want to insist here and now that we should either have a Forestry Commission for Scotland upon which should sit only Scotsmen, or there should be better representation for Scotland on the Forestry Commission. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Some months ago the Scottish Unionist Members appointed a small committee to inquire into the present responsibility for the Crown lands in Scotland, and as I happen to be the only Member of that committee able to be here today, in the interval one of the Members having become Governor-designate of Bombay, and the other being abroad on a Parliamentary Commission, I should like to thank the Government for accepting the recommendation made by the committee. It meets with the general assent of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as I understand that hon. Members opposite had a similar committee which made a somewhat similar recommendation. Prior to 1832, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President mentioned, the Scottish Court of Exchequer was charged with the duty of administering the Crown lands in Scotland, and it is in accord with the prevailing sentiment in Scotland to-day that the original concept of local responsibility in administering these lands should be restored in modern form by adding the Secretary of State to the Board of Commissioners. Quite apart from the fact that something like one-third of the area of the Crown lands is in fact located in Scotland, which would alone have justified this Measure, we have to remember that there are important differences between the legal systems in Scotland and England, and also, from the practical point of view of

administration, a very important difference in climatic conditions. Therefore, this small Measure is a wise step in the shape of making for better administration, and I trust that it will pass through the House without any opposition.

Mr. Stephen: I have no very great enthusiasm for this Bill, but, like my colleagues in Scotland, I am willing that it should pass. I have heard it said that it was better to have half a loaf than no bread, but I do hot think that this represents half a loaf. It is a very tiny crumb. The Secretary of State for Scotland is evidently going to take some interest in this matter. The Lord President said it had been considered whether it would not be better to make a division, and that superficially that seemed the proper way to deal with it. He did not develop the argument. He said it had been decided that that was only a superficial way of dealing with it. I do not know. It appears to me that not only superficially but materially this would have been the best way of dealing with Crown lands. I wondered, when the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) was speaking, whether the estate which has been gifted to Scotland to which he referred will become part of the Crown lands. It is just as well to be clear on these matters.
I frankly do not know very much about the administration of Crown lands, but I would like to be told who are the other two Commissioners, what salaries they are paid, and when they were appointed. Can the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture tell us how many employees there are on these Crown lands for which the Secretary of State for Scotland will have some responsibility of administration in the days to come? Perhaps the most important thing about this Measure is that it is a very small indication of how things are moving, and I hope that this small cloud in the sky, no bigger than a man's hand, will give some indication that at no distant date we in Scotland are going to get a much greater share in the administration of our own country and the development of Scottish life in accordance with Scottish ideals.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not welcome this Bill one bit, and I


do not think it will be of any use to Scotland. I view this move with suspicion. A number of moves with which we are going to be saddled in Scotland are being made at the moment that are going to treble our activities as Socialists. Our boys are out at the front fighting for Scotland, their native land, although they do not own an inch of it, not as much as will bury them. The spirit is abroad in the land that the day is near when they will have to give some consideration to the land of their fathers being theirs and not the property of the Crown.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the land question as a whole in Scotland. This Bill relates to Crown lands and Crown lands only, and the hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of land in Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not wish to cross swords with you, Sir, but I want to put it to you in this way. You could not have Crown lands in Scotland without having Scottish land. It is part of the whole. I do not want any lands in Scotland to belong to the Crown any more than to private landlords. That is the Socialist position here, and we should see to it that we do not do anything that would make it more difficult. I believe that the day is not far distant when the people of Scotland will demand that Scotland be theirs. The very fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) said that this Measure had unanimous support was enough to bring me to my feet at once. It was too funny for words.

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: Why?

Mr. Kirkwood: Because the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view is diametrically opposed to mine. He is in favour of Scotland continuing under the hellish conditions which have existed there up to the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "As a result of noble families."] Yes, that is it, and nobody is a better exponent of that doctrine than the present Secretary of State for Scotland. He has an opportunity of putting into operation the ideas he has propagated year in and year out. I was one of his most enthusiastic supporters. I would be still, if he was treading the same path to-day. I am not following him now. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher),

I would never stand on a Tory platform and advise people to vote Conservative. This is the same principle. I am not supporting anything connected with Crown lands in Scotland being handed away in this fashion. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a representative of the King in Scotland, and he has great power. If he would exercise that power along the lines he has put forward many a time, and which he said he would do if he ever had control, it would be a good thing. The land in Scotland should be controlled for the benefit of the working folk in Scotland, instead of asking us to pass this titivating Measure which is before us to-day. We are doing this at a time when we are fighting for our lives. It is not as if there was something good about this Bill. No. We heard the Leader of our party standing at that Box to-day. How many listened to him? There was no enthusiasm at all. How can I tell my boy who is at the front that he must go on fighting for his country and the men who are here when we are taking no interest in such men? Fancy saying that all is right in the Highlands, that there is no poverty there and that people are well off. It is just a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself more to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: I suppose I must bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I want to register my protest against the moves that are being made by certain individuals. It is because I know these individuals that I am suspicious of what is being done for Scotland. These electro-hydro boards and other boards will be put up against us. We shall have to fight. My voice will go to Scotland, and I warn them not to be "kidded." There is the case of the MacBrayne ships. I am telling the truth, and this is the place to tell it. I will also tell it in the constituencies. We have MacBrayne's boats. It is all very well to smile—

Mr. McKinlay: Surely my hon. Friend does not expect me to cry? In any case I was not laughing. It is not a laughing matter; it is a case more for tears.

Mr. Kirkwood: Well I will not carry that further, except to register again my protest in this House about what is going on in Scotland to-day.

Mr. Mathers: Like Members on both sides of the House, I give a welcome to this Bill. I am glad that we have it before us to-day, because I put a Question on the subject on 10th September. This is a United Kingdom Bill; it cannot be otherwise by the facts of the case. Crown lands are not divisible between the different countries that form the United Kingdom. That was the difficulty, if I may so put it, that made it impossible to grant a full measure of devolution of the functions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands when this matter was first raised in September. The origin of my Question was that the Minister of Agriculture at that time had paid a visit to Scotland in his capacity as Commissioner of Crown Lands. Certain Press comments were made upon that, and there was rather adverse criticism of the fact that an English Minister with no other responsibility in Scotland could go into Scotland and talk to farmers and others on the land about its development. That, however, is inherent in the position. He was entitled to do that because the functions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands are to maintain and develop estates that come under their charge. They are charged also with deciding the use of the net revenue. That is why on the back of this small Bill there appears the name of a representative of the Treasury. That is why it is not purely a Scottish matter and why the Second Reading was moved by the Lord President of the Council who, although a Scotsman, and, therefore, from a legislative point of view appropriate to "first-foot" this House at the beginning of the year, is not a Scottish Minister.
I received from the Prime Minister on 10th September an answer to my Question in which he made reference to the past history of things, taking us back especially to 1906. He said that since the question had been raised he would gladly look into it. The result of the consideration that was promised by the Prime Minister is the Bill now before us. I cannot see any other way of dealing with this problem than as a United Kingdom matter, and I cannot see any happier solution of the position that I explained on 10th September than the method followed in this Bill. I am sure that what is being done here should not be looked upon, as it was looked upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), as a cloud no bigger than a

man's hand. It should be looked upon as a gleam of sunshine—

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend will remember that the cloud no bigger than a man's hand was the harbinger of the refreshing rain that was needed in time of drought. I was thinking of it in the same way as the harbinger of the better time that will come in Scotland when we shall have the refreshing rain which will give as a Scottish administration.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and in the country where that simile was used rain was a very great refresher and a very great blessing, but from our point of view it seems to me that the simile of sunshine would be more appropriate to gladness, goodwill, good wishes and good progress for the future. The Bill has come forward as a result of efforts to remedy an anomaly. I am glad that the Minister concerned, who is having, it would appear, his power diminished in part, is one of the sponsors of the Bill, and I am glad my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is given a standing, which previously he had not got, to act for Scotland in respect of these Crown lands which are situated all over Great Britain. It is true that he is added to the General Commission, but I am certain his particular care will be applied to the use of the Scottish Crown lands. If the criticism is levelled against this Bill that it is such a small thing that we should not be dealing with it in time of war, I suggest it is a good thing that we can, without unduly taking up time, even during war time deal with an anomaly which has appeared and which required legislation to remedy it. I am sorry that it did require legislation, for it would have been more appropriate if it could have been done quietly and administratively, but since it did require legislation I am glad the legislation has been brought forward, even during war time, and I am certain that the Bill, when properly understood by those people who are interested in it in Scotland, will be looked upon as a concession to Scottish sentiment, and we will look for more coming in that direction in the future.

Mr. McNeil: I say earnestly that I did not mean to speak in this Debate and did not want to do so, but the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers)


has driven me to my feet. This Bill is a minor Measure about which there should have been no discussion, and no clapping of hands. If my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow wants to make a speech and wants much clapping of hands, I think he ought to tell the House and to tell such a stupid Scottish person as me what the Bill is about.

Mr. Mathers: May I say to my hon. Friend that a very competent and illuminating historical review was given by the Lord President of the Council when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. That review was very informative. If my hon. Friend was not present in the House when the speech was made, he will find profit and benefit from reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Mr. McNeil: If the great warmth which the hon. Member expects to find radiating throughout Scotland because of this concession to sentiment is to be based on the Lord President's magnificent historical researches, I am afraid my hon. Friend will be a little disappointed. My hon. Friend showed us two results that will follow from the Bill, and he made them pretty clear. He said there would be a change in the status of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State has had many compliments paid to him and I am always prepared to pay my quota of compliment in respect of his efforts on behalf of Scotland, but I do not think this Measure contributes to his status and certainly it does not contribute to his powers. The other point made by my hon. Friend, who has made this particular Bill his foster child, was that the Minister of Agriculture trespassed in Scotland last year and that he will no longer be allowed to trespass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend did not use the word "trespass." He said that the Minister of Agriculture could not come across the Border. The word "trespass" may be rather a free translation, but that was the point which my hon. Friend was trying to make. The Minister of Agriculture could not come officially.

Mr. Mathers: If I inadvertently used an expression of that kind, it is wrong. The Minister of Agriculture in England will, as one of the Crown Lands Commissioners, still be able to enter Scotland. I hope I did not fall into the error of saying that he was barred from appearing in Scotland as one of the Commissioners.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member's explanation makes the mystery even more mysterious. He told us that this has occurred because last year the Minister of Agriculture, as a Crown Commissioner, came to survey Crown lands in Scotland. I rather stupidly inferred that the point of making the Secretary of State for Scotland a Crown Commissioner was that he would attend to the Crown lands in Scotland so far as they needed visits. If that is not the purpose of the Bill, the Bill seems to me to be futile. I am no authority on the state of the Crown lands in Scotland, but I think—and I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree with me—that if a Hottentot could improve the housing conditions in the hon. Member's constituency and in my constituency, we would gladly welcome the Hottentot.

Mr. Kirkwood: In preference to the Secretary of State?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry if I disappoint the hon. Member, but I cannot subscribe to that. The Secretary of State has persistently addressed himself to this problem. I am merely pointing out that I cannot see any advantage in excluding anyone who has anything to contribute to Scottish problems. I shall not oppose the Bill. Scottish opinion will be inserted into the deliberations of the Crown Commissioners and some good may proceed from that but the Secretary of State has no new powers as a result of the Bill and no authority is added to the Secretary of State as a result of the Bill. I cannot see, as a Socialist, that there is any hope of any difference being made to the condition and treatment of land in Scotland as a result of the Bill, and certainly I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that, in the increasing anxiety about Scottish affairs that we see around us in Scotland at the present time, this Bill will neither give pleasure nor do anything to allay the anxiety.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I feel that the hon. Member has been a little ungenerous about this Measure. It is certainly not a matter of shattering importance, but it is a change in our administrative machinery rendered necessary largely by the research of members of the Conservative Party who have been addressing their minds to the matter for some time. It was they who gathered


together the historical threads of the argument and presented it to some of their colleagues, and I was glad to co-operate with them in making their petition to the Government. The change brought about at last gives the Scottish Secretary some immediate voice in the management of the Crown lands, and, while technically the hon. Member may be right in saying that no added power is given him, I am certain that in practice he will exercise a very considerable influence upon the use of those lands and, to the extent that he does that and places in the hands of the Scottish people the control of some Scottish assets, the Bill is a good one and should be welcomed. As one of the signatories to the document asking for the Bill, I say "Thank you" for it.

Mr. McKinlay: I should like to ask one or two questions about this Measure. It may have been stated how many Commissioners there are. If there are only three, the Secretary of State, I presume, will be in a permanent minority, but I do not think that matters very much. I should like to know whether he will possess, or whether at the moment he possesses, the same power of direction over the Crown lands as he has over lands owned and worked by others. For instance, should I be right in saying that he has the same power in dealing with Crown lands as in dealing with others? Could he, as Secretary of State for Scotland and responsible for agriculture, exercise any authority to determine the uses to be made of the Crown lands by those who are working them, and can we have an assurance that in the proposed hydroelectric development in the highlands, steps will be taken to see that the Crown lands are safeguarded and will not be utilised for the purpose of adding to the revenues of private electricity undertakings? The Bill goes back for reference purposes to the Crown Lands Act, 1829. I am satisfied that, like all other Acts of Parliament, it can be made to look exceedingly difficult and that simple propositions, when they get into the hands of the Law Officers, become exceedingly difficult. Will my right hon. Friend have to apply to the Home Secretary for permission, for instance, to use poison in dealing with the extermination of foxes? I learn from the Press that an application has been made to the Home

Secretary, or that he has condescended to give permission to agriculturists to use strychnine in order to get rid of foxes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): There is no general permission to use strychnine.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the House that we are not discussing the destruction of foxes.

Mr. McKinlay: We are dealing with the powers that are being vested in the Secretary of State as an additional commissioner. If he has power to direct the uses to be made of Crown lands, I certainly think he ought to have power to give directions as to the destruction of vermin. If it is the desire of those who work the land to destroy vermin, has my right hon. Friend authority to grant such permission or must he go to the Home Secretary to get permission to do something which agriculturists say is absolutely essential to be done? I think my right hon. Friend realises the point. If he does not, I am satisfied that he will have the opportunity of giving an answer in the very near future, not from Dumbarton but from a bigger constituency in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I cannot say who is responsible for the strychnine required for the destruction of foxes and other vermin, but I will endeavour to find out and will let my hon. Friend know. After the Bill is passed, the number of Commissioners in Great Britain will be three, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State and a civil servant, who will receive the salary of his grade in the Civil Service. The other two Commissioners are and will continue to be unpaid. The purpose of the Bill is to add to the Commissioners for the administration of Crown lands the Secretary of State for Scotland for the time being. The anomaly that has arisen was stated clearly by the Lord President of the Council. It had arisen in this way, that the Richmond and Gordon estates had fallen to the Crown Lands Commissioners, and the anomaly appeared that the English Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was compelled, by the fact that he was a Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Scotland was not, to be left in administration of these estates. The answer to the question whether the Bill makes any


change regarding the directions which the Secretary of State, as Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, can give through the agricultural executive committees is "No." His powers remain absolutely as they are now; he can give directions through the agricultural executive committees as to the proper agricultural use to which land can be put.

Mr. Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any idea of the number of employees of the Crown Lands Commission.

Mr. Johnston: I am afraid I could not give that without notice. I should like to add that the overwhelming proportion of the revenues of the Crown lands are not derivable from agricultural land at all.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—(Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.)

Orders of the Day — POLICE (APPEALS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It will be remembered that in the Debate on the Defence Regulations which dealt with powers given to the Home Secretary to amalgamate police forces under certain conditions, the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) as to the difference in the system of police discipline in boroughs where watch committees obtain and in counties where the police are under a standing joint committee. I said that I would consider the point. The argument of my hon. Friend was that where a borough police force is amalgamated with a county police force the right of a constable to be dealt with on a disciplinary offence by the watch committee would cease and he would be subject directly to the chief constable as the disciplinary authority, and, therefore, his position would be worsened. I have considered that point. Indeed, I said at the time that if the proposal which I had in mind and which I indicated to the House proved to be not controversial, I

would take steps to deal with it by legislation. The House gave every indication that it was friendly to the proposal which I made in response to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley. The result is the production of this Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving not only for myself but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Bill will apply to the Scottish forces as well.
The watch committee is the disciplinary authority in the borough and the chief constable in county. The position in Scotland is like that in the counties—with the exception of Glasgow, where the discipline of the most senior ranks is in the hands of the magistrates. The situation is that a constable has no right of appeal to the Secretary of State in either England or Wales or Scotland unless he is dismissed from the force or is required to resign. If he is reduced in rank or reduced in pay there is no appeal from the watch committee or the chief constable. Nor is there any appeal, and I do not propose that there should be, in the case of minor penalties such as fines. It was the view of the House, and it is certainly mine, that this state of affairs is rather hard on the policeman. I was anxious to do something about it if there was general agreement by extending the right of appeal against reduction in rank or in rate of pay. The House having indicated its warm agreement with that course, this Bill was prepared. It is little more than a drafting Measure making amendments to the Police Appeals Act, 1927, in order to meet the points I have mentioned. The Bill is clearly explained by the long Title which is set out at the beginning.
The question is whether it is desirable that an appeal to the Secretary of State should be given in these further cases. A reduction in rank is a severe happening to any policeman. It means, of course, that he loses money, but it means also that there is a blot on his copybook, that there is a bad mark in his record and that his status in the service materially falls. Consequently it is a matter of great gravity if an officer is reduced in rank, although there clearly are cases where a reduction properly takes place. Nevertheless, I feel, and I think the House will agree, that where a reduction in rank is enforced by a chief constable in a county or a watch committee in a borough it is right and reasonable—without making


any reflection on the committees or the chief constables, which I do not wish to do—that there should be a right of appeal to the Seceretary of State by the policeman concerned.
The other penalty is a reduction in rate of pay which can be of a fairly substantial amount. While that penalty is not so severe as reduction in rank, it can be financially severe, and the right of appeal should be extended in that case as well. That is the proposal in the Bill which the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself propose should obtain throughout the whole of Great Britain. The Bill is also supported by the County and Borough Chief Constables Associations in England and Wales. They have accepted it and are agreeable about it. It is accepted by the rank and file of the English and Welsh police forces through the Police Federation. It is also supported, although they might like to go further, by the Scottish Police Federation and to some extent by the Scottish Chief Constables Association. The Bill applies to the whole of the police service—the Metropolitan Police, the police of the City of London, and all the county and borough police forces of England, Scotland and Wales.
Among the advantages of this system of appeal there is the point that it tends to set up some measure of uniformity of treatment as the result of experience, because the Home Secretary must administer appeals on a level footing. The consequence is that doctrine and experience will emerge which will guide the Home Office and the local police authorities as to the kind of standard which they should apply in these cases. There may be and sometimes are instances where in the Home Secretary's view the watch committee or the chief constable may have made an error of judgment in the award of punishment, and so far as that occurs a correction can be made. But this Bill is not proposed because of any widespread opposition to the disciplinary functions of chief constables and watch committees; it is proposed on the grounds of elementary justice to the rank and file of the police.
I think it will be helpful to discipline because if the system of discipline is fair and equitable and reasonably level that in itself is helpful to discipline. The discipline

of the police force is of the greatest importance. It is of profound importance not only to police organisation but to the relationship between the police and the public. We have every reason to be appreciative of the very fine and high standard of discipline that exists in the police forces of this country. But discipline is good in itself, good for the self respect of the service, and I think this Bill does nothing to damage discipline but, on the contrary, will assist it.
I do not expect a flood of appeals as a consequence of this Bill. Although the Police Appeal Act was passed in 1927 it is interesting to record that there have been only about 200 appeals against the decisions of watch committees and chief constables. The procedure in appeals against dismissal or enforced resignation is this: There can be a decision by the Secretary of State himself, on his own responsibility, in simple cases, in the light of the facts put before him; or he may appoint, and often does appoint, a tribunal of inquiry which must include a person experienced in police administration, and in the more difficult cases includes an experienced lawyer of standing. That course will continue to be adopted in appropriate cases. There is power to increase the penalty, which I think is right. It is right that the Secretary of State should be free on appeal to increase, decrease, modify or eliminate the penalty altogether, or to uphold the decision of the disciplinary authority. I think there must be a power of variation upwards or downwards, first as a safeguard against frivolous appeals which might be brought if there were no risk of losing anything, and, secondly, because it will enable the Secretary of State to deal with cases where the facts lead him to take a more serious view than was taken by the disciplinary authority.
The point may be raised whether a right of appeal ought not to extend to lesser penalties, for example, a fine. If we went to that extent we should, I think, overburden the State machine with things that ought not to come to it. It would be a great pity if the Secretary of State had gravely to consider the question of a half-crown fine, or even a heavier fine, and I do not think it is necessary that he should have to do so. I did consider whether one could set a limit to the fine below which there could be no appeal to the Secretary of State and above which


there could be, but I rejected that on the ground that there might be a temptation to the authorities to have regard to that figure of demarcation which would determine whether the case could go to the Secretary of State or not. I think we had better leave the position as it is.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer; we have in the police force to-day not only the regular police but a certain number of full-time special constables and the police war reserve. These officers of the auxiliary police have an association of their own called the Auxiliary Police Association, and they have made representations asking that the proposals should be made applicable to them, in principle, as they apply to the regular police. The present position is that the auxiliary police have no appeal against a decision of a chief constable on any ground, not even dismissal. I propose to give them the right of appeal in the case of dismissal or of reduction in pay. The issue of reduction in rank does not arise, because there is only one rank among them, and they cannot therefore be reduced in rank. I propose to apply in principle to the auxiliary police the same considerations that I am applying in the Bill to the regular police, but it can be done quite conveniently by a Defence Regulation, and is better dealt with in that way, because the auxiliary police are essentially a war-time organisation. These matters may not be so serious to them, because they are not going to be policemen for life generally speaking. Dismissal from the police force is not the end of their life's career. Nevertheless, dismissal is a serious matter, and a reduction in pay may also be a very serious matter, and therefore, if the House concurs, I propose to deal with the position by Defence Regulation.
I have explained the purpose of the Bill, and I will only say in conclusion that I know the House takes a great interest in the welfare as well as in the efficiency and the discipline of the police forces of the country. I think I can say, not only for myself but for Parliament, that we have the highest regard for the ability, the honesty, and the high standard of discipline of the police forces of our country. The British police are a highly popular institution, and all of us in Parliament very much respect their work, and we have every reason, as the result of air attacks and war-time experiences, to

respect the police even more than we did before the war. I am sure that I shall carry hon. Members with me in that statement. Having explained the Bill, which is of a very simple character, I commend it to the favourable consideration of the House and ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.

Dr. Russell Thomas: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to provide for the penalty to be increased on appeal to himself, does he not think that that may deter constables from appealing, because they may feel that though they are suffering under an injustice an appeal would be hardly worth while if there was risk of an increase in the punishment? Does he not consider that the matter should go first to the watch committee or to the standing joint committee and then as an appeal to himself?

Mr. Morrison: I have considered that point. There is nothing new about this proposal. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will agree, it has been a feature of the procedure in the Court of Criminal Appeal for 35 years. When a person appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal he runs that risk.

Dr. Thomas: But he does not go to the Criminal Court of Appeal at once: he is first prosecuted before a lower court.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member is going to introduce as many stages as possible in this painful process, he can do so, but I do not think it would be a good thing. We must have this provision for two reasons. First, the local authority may itself be lax in its discipline. Let us not forget that there is a danger of under-enforcing discipline as well as of over-enforcing it. That must be kept in mind. Secondly, I want a policeman before he puts this rather high-powered machine of the Secretary of State in action—possibly involving a local inquiry—to think carefully whether he is doing right or wrong. He must weigh up the question of whether he is likely to get something or whether there is a risk of losing. Between those two considerations I think he will take a balanced view on the question of whether to appeal or not.

Mr. Amman: I think it is not inappropriate to point out that we have here another instance of somewhat express legislation. In the case


of the previous Bill we were told that it was as recently as September last that a Question was asked in the House which gave rise to that Bill, which has now passed its Second Reading; and I understand that in the case of the Bill now before us progress was even more rapid, because it is since September that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) asked the Question which has now resulted in the appearance of this Bill. I congratulate both the Ministers on their expedition. The Bill is small, but is of tremendous importance to the persons concerned. I find it a rather curious full turn of the wheel that the accident of events should have put me into this position this afternoon. The Bill takes my mind back to the trouble we had with the police during the last war, when members of that body sat on the wall of 10, Downing Street, and serenaded the right hon. Gentleman whom we felicitated this afternoon on having reached his 80th birthday. Out of that position grew the police organisation. I mention all this only because I had the privilege of being the first treasurer of the Police and Prison Officers' Union, which was then formed. It was dangerous for them to organise, and events have since proved the wisdom of having collective representation even within Government departments. The State and the Department have had much advantage thereby.
The Bill brings the police into full line now with the Civil Service. I remember going through this phase in another Department of the public service in order to win the right of appeal to the head of the Department. That right was conceded after a very brief struggle, incidentally, I may say, arising out of the fact that I myself was suspended from that service for venturing to appeal to the head of the service. I brought the whole matter to the struggle which resulted in that right being conceded. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is not a little mistaken in the reply which he gave a short time ago. I imagine that in any case, before the appeal comes about, a man will have protested to his immediate chiefs and will have found out whether the decision is likely to be revoked before he goes a step further. This is done now right throughout the Service. I welcome the Bill because it puts the finishing touch to the right of appeal that these men have,

about everything which is not a matter of ordinary routine discipline. On matters of major importance they have the right to carry the appeal to their chief. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to his impulse to consider placing a demarcation as to the amount of the fine, because I do not think the men are so much concerned about the amount of money they have to pay, as about what a fine means to their escutcheon or their record. When the first flush of this legislation has gone, I do not imagine that appeals will be so many as to overwhelm the Home Office. We cannot now discuss the position of the auxiliary police, as it has no relation to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should, however, be congratulated on his wisdom and his liberality of outlook in regard to these matters.
We are doing a simple act of duty in this connection. We demand a very high standard of conduct and discipline from our police, force, and it is fair that there should be an equally high standard of defence for a man who may fall into trouble for excess use of his duty. Such cases may not be serious enough for dismissal or to affect promotion, but to a certain extent they will affect a man's personal prestige. In small boroughs or districts, the fact that a man may have fallen into disfavour may have serious results for him, and if he has cause for appeal the Bill gives him a fair chance to make his position clear. From that standpoint we are justified by the fact that our police are accepted all over the world as a standard to which most people look up with pride. At the same time, the foundation of good discipline is confidence in the disciplinary machine. If a man should fall into difficulty he must know he has a right to fair dealing and fair consideration. He must not only feel that justice has been done, but must know that he has every opportunity to secure justice. To secure that end is worth the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Culverwell: I do not wish to make a speech but only to ask a question of the Home Secretary. I do not know what authorities or organisations he consulted before bringing forward the Bill, but I understand that the Association of Municipal Corporations does not consider the Bill necessary so far as their boroughs are concerned, because constables there have


a right of appeal to the watch committees. They urge the Minister to take steps on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1932, in view of the fact that he has just taken power to amalgamate police authorities. The Select Committee recommended that the right of appeal should be given in any case where the police force of a borough is merged into that of a county, and that all members of a county force should have a right of appeal, against the decision of the chief constables in matters of discipline, to the standing joint committee or the sub-committee appointed by that body for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman is doing something which the association do not consider necessary. They regard the adoption of the Select Committee's recommendation as urgently necessary now, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can do something to fulfil the recommendations in that respect.

Mr. Collindridge: I congratulate the Home Secretary upon the speedy introduction of the Bill. We had a Debate on 14th October, and I appreciate him and his Department in carrying out the promise and pledge given in so recent a Debate, particularly in the stress of these days. It must have given some concern to him and to the Department. It is good to hear of this Measure to bring into effect the mergers proposed in the Debate of 14th October. In that Debate, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to promise that discussion should take place, before the actual mergers, with parties concerned, and he has done so. It is good also that the minds of our police are to be set at rest by the proposals of the Bill.
I want to say a word upon the main purport of the Bill. We are proposing to give to our county or borough police, whether merged or not, a right of appeal when they are punished by reductions of rank or rate of pay on the lines of the Police Appeals Act, 1927. This is all to the good and will be generally welcomed, but particularly by police in county areas. Hitherto there has been the very anomalous position, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, that in the case of any disciplinary action taken against a policeman in a borough force the power and authority are vested in the watch committee. Any member of the force

aggrieved by any disciplinary action taken by the chief constable has the right to appear before the watch committee, but in a county police force the position has been different. While I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we have not been subject in this matter to many appeals since the Act of 1927, at the same time there has always been the point that an anomaly of the kind I have quoted now could not continue. In a county police force, as we know, disciplinary power is vested in the chief constable, and from an award by him there is no appeal except to the Secretary of State, and then only when a man is dismissed or required to resign. Why this anomaly has existed so long I frankly cannot say. I am fully conscious that this right of appeal is valued by the police in the boroughs, and it is the envy and desire always of the men in the counties. It has not been unduly exploited, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, where the right exists, but, because it has existed, it is felt that the restraining effect produced on those in whom authority is vested has been all to the good. Had the Home Secretary not come forward with this Bill, we would in some cases have been taking advantage of some of our police in merged districts. These are not the days, if ever there were days, when rights of this kind should be lost to anybody. I feel sure that sentiment particularly applies to our police.
With others, I welcome this present appeal in principle even though I do not agree with all the steps that are to be taken, because it occurs to me that we are still not to give the full status quo to the police who are in some districts to be merged under the proposals of 14th October. Take the case of a county borough going, by merger, under a county area. Hitherto police in a borough have had full right of appeal with access to the watch committee. When the mergers take place the former borough police will receive in exchange for their lost right of appeal to the watch committee, the right of appeal on certain disciplinary awards made against them to the Home Secretary. I have the utmost respect for the Home Secretary, and on a majority of occasions I would accept his very good sound judgment, but because I know that in the busy office he has he will have to be advised by his Home Office Department, and with no disrespect at all to that body, I doubt whether this substitution for our


present watch committee consideration is an adequate return. The watch committee institution has been well tried over a long period in the past, and I believe has proved effective. They know the local circumstances on matters of this description which we are now discussing, I believe, far better than the people, say, in Whitehall can ever hope to do.
This present Bill, which I welcome as a step in the right direction, while it gives something in place of what the merged policeman of the borough loses, does not give to him what he has lost. It may be said that the Bill gives to the absorbing authority and to all police in the country the right of appeal already in the 1927 Act, but I think that this will not be convincing to the people in the borough who have their watch committee rights taken away. I think that perhaps the best policy to have adopted, particularly considering the times we are in, would have been to have acted in a big way and to have accepted the idea of the Select Committee of 1932 and granted the right of appeal, as enjoyed by county boroughs. This Committee made the recommendation in 1932, over 10 years ago, and surely we should have taken some steps along the progressive road even so far as it concerns new liberties.
I want to raise one or two issues, and I would be glad to have the views of my right hon. Friend on these matters. Are we to understand that the right of appeal to the Home Office is limited to certain offences and that thereby certain disciplinary awards will be taken? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, in the survey which he gave concerning fines—he put it in very choice language—was seized by the full import of what these fines can amount to, and these fines when imposed will not be subject to right of appeal. Under Police Regulation 21 there are eight types of punishment for offences: First, dismissal; second, being required to resign forthwith or at such date as may be ordered; third, reduction in rank; fourth, reduction in rate of pay; fifth, forfeiture of merit conduct badges except such as have been granted for acts of courage or bravery; sixth, fine; seventh, reprimand; eighth, caution. The constable under fine may be punished by rate of pay, by one or more increments up to a period of 52 weeks. Constables subject to the reduction

of one increment for 12 months may pay, say, under Scale A, up to £5 4s., and £6 10s. under Scale B. On the other hand, the constable may at the top rate be fined an amount not exceeding seven days' pay. The important point I want to get over for my right hon. Friend's consideration is this, that though a constable may be indicted for one offence, it may be that one, two, or even three types of punishment may be meted out to him for this one offence. I would make a suggestion with regard to these fines, which may be in their accumulation fairly large sums, spread over, say, 52 weeks and when they are accompanied with loss of special increment advances and also certain pension payments. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will accept the appeal I now make that fines, say, of the magnitude of 20s. or more might be the subject of a right of appeal to him for future consideration.
On this matter of loss of pay and promotion and of the effect on future pension, it may be said that the effect will be small; but I have gone into this question with friends who are likely to be affected, and I assure my right hon. Friend the police fear the effect of fines without right of appeal. This body of men is worthy of the fullest consideration we can give. They are as liberty-loving as any of us. While perhaps the withholding of certain rights will not make them falter in their duty to the nation, I am certain it will affect their pride. How can we ask them, among their multifarious duties, to discover and bring to justice the wrongdoer, and having done so then the offender against the community shall be given the right of appeal, while the custodians of law and order are denied that elementary right in matters which directly concern them? In time past the right of appeal has not been unduly exploited. It is an admirable safety-valve. It was never good for authority to be vested in one individual, as is more clearly shown today than at any other time. I am not unaware of the Home Secretary's desire to get this Bill through with as little controversy as possible. Some people, perhaps in the seats of authority, will not welcome the democratic idea of the Bill, but I think the overwhelming majority in the country will accept its good intention.
I have seen, in my own industrial district and in others, an amazing change in the public attitude towards the police.


There is a tendency now to regard the police as 100 per cent. servants of the whole community. There was a movement towards such an attitude before the war, and the national emergency has completed it. We have seen our police during enemy attack not merely keeping order, but taking charge often and co-ordinating the work of the various Civil Defence organisations. If incendiary bombs fall the police must help to put them out, and they must assist in lessening the extent of damage. In many less populous districts the police force has been the real core of our Civil Defence. The members of the Civil Defence services often look to them for guidance and leadership.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on granting the right which is embodied in the Bill, and I am sure it will not be unduly exploited. I would appeal to those who will be merged from the borough forces to use this legislation, but I do hope that to them, and to all police, there will be granted at some date hot far distant that liberty which hitherto the county borough police have had, of watch committee or standing joint committee consideration accompanied by right of appeal to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred to this as a small Bill. It may be small in respect of the amount of paper it takes up, but it is very far-reaching. It will be recollected that on 14th October we discussed the amalgamation of police forces. It was clearly stated that that was purely a temporary measure, and that it might be discontinued, if this House thought fit, on the termination of the War (Emergency Powers) Act. What we are discussing to-day is not a temporary matter but a permanent one. We want to have some regard to what has prompted this permanence. The amendment to the Police Appeals Act, 1927, will have permanent effect upon a large body of borough police forces which, in all probability, will not be affected by the Regulation. From their point of view alone, I submit, the borough police forces should be kept outside this Act. Those police forces that are not going to be amalgamated are to lose a very great privilege. I regard an appeal to the watch committee as being far more important, from the policeman's point of view, than an appeal to the Home Secretary. I do

not see any advantage—I see considerable disadvantage—in making it the responsibility of the policemen to appeal to the central authority. I feel I am interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's intention correctly when I say that he is in favour of central bureaucracy. The Home Secretary's outlook throughout is in favour of central control, and the building up of a bureaucracy which will break the backbone of this country if it goes much farther. I must protest against the rights and privileges of the borough police being taken away and the substitution of a right of appeal to the Home Secretary for the right of appeal to the watch committee. What is the position of these borough police who will be affected by the proposed amalgamation? I believe I am right in saying that there are 18 borough police forces to be affected by this first amalgamation and in which there are probably some 350 to 450 members affected.
Are these men going to enjoy the same rights and privileges which they enjoy now? The answer is definitely in the negative. Therefore, I stress again that the Home Secretary would be well advised to leave the borough police forces alone. I have submitted two grounds upon which I can justify putting that proposal before the Home Secretary. What is the position of the county police? Members of the county police forces have had the right to appeal to their chief constable and I do not consider that that should be the kind of court of decision in any case whether it was a question of pay, discipline or whatever it might be. Therefore, the county police are gaining something by this Bill but I become suspicious. If the Home Secretary feels, as he must do, justified in bringing this Bill forward, then the privileges and rights which have proved to be satisfactory in every respect as far as the borough police forces are concerned should be extended in their entirety to the county police forces.
When we come to the end of the war emergency powers it may well be that this Act will create a state of confusion at the time which will not be beneficial to the police force. There is not a finer body of men in the public service than the members of the police forces of this country. I am very jealous of that position and of the position which they hold not only in the opinion of the people of this country but of the people from overseas who visit


this country. I would regret considerably if we did something to-day which might in any way prejudice that position. The Home Secretary made certain promises when he spoke on 14th October, but I wonder whether he has asked himself whether he to-day is implementing what he said on that day in the best way and in the way which will assure the continuance of the efficiency of the police. I do not want to raise the question again as to whether amalgamation is right or wrong, because the House knows my views on that subject, but this is perhaps my last opportunity of recording the necessity of this House adopting very great precautions in what it decides to do as far as the future working and operation of the police is concerned. We are not out in any way to decrease or interfere with their efficiency, and I strongly appeal to the Home Secretary, when we are making a really important decision in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, whether this is the best way of implementing his undertaking of 14th October.

Mr. Ritson: I congratulate the Home Secretary upon the step he has taken. It is a very forward step as far as the police are concerned. I may inform the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) that I have been on both sides of the fence either as poacher or gamekeeper. As far as the county police are concerned, this is a big step forward. When I was brought up I was rather anxious to see things bigger than I really had seen them. I remember that if a policeman in the county offended some county family, the chief constable had no other way but to punish him, to appease some of these people. I remember as a young policeman myself there was once an election, and I was sent for by the chief constable. He said, "You are the only man likely not to keep your mouth shut when the candidates are before us, and you have to answer no questions but a political question. If you do—" and he threatened what he would do. I went into the meeting. It was a double-barrelled constituency, and the first thing I had to do in order to get round the chief constable's corner was to say, "I am speaking through an official muzzle. If I put other than political questions to you, I shall be punished." I asked this question. I said, "If you are returned, will you see that I get the same chance as the

county chief constable has in counties in the North of England going round supporting the Conservative candidate?" Believe me, I got round the chief constable all right. It shows the power of the county chief constable.
Let me give an idea of some more of their powers. In one of our big strikes in Durham we had at the head of the county council, fortunately, a man named Peter Lee, a very outstanding man. The chief constable of the county asked that they should have the Navy there to keep the waters clear in the pit and the soldiers to keep order. The chairman of the county council said, "I happen to be the head of this county for the moment. You are going to have no soldiers and no sailors here. I will look after the order of the county." He did. He said, "You put cars at my disposal wherever there is likely to be trouble, and you will send for me and send your area policemen." There was not a single window broken, but if the county chief constable had used the powers he was anxious to use, we would have had no end of trouble with the soldiers and sailors.
Let me deal with an hon. Friend's criticisms about watch committees. There are even watch committees that will accept the word of a chief constable in a borough against the good conduct of the policeman himself, because he is the chief constable. I have been on watch committees for years. The chief constable could recommend so many men for promotion as against the old diabolical system where some watch committee member had to sell goods for a living. There was a rush then by constables looking for promotions to buy articles, whether they needed them or not. You had councillors canvassing influential men to get votes on the watch committee for the particular men who wanted promotion. The watch committees were a good deal more corrupt than the police.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the police are corrupt?

Mr. Ritson: I did not say that the police are corrupt as a body, although charges have been made against individual policemen that were justified. I remember the first man I tried to train. We went round trying doors, and when I turned round he was searching a fellow's pockets.


I said, "What are you doing?" and he replied, "I thought he might have some good cigars." There was a man who was corrupt from the very beginning, but I did not blame the whole police force. The hon. Member must not charge me with saying that the police are corrupt. They are a fine body of men. In the last 20 years the conditions that have existed between public and the police have advanced beyond the wildest dreams. In colliery villages and towns policemen were once dreaded; to-day they are welcomed. To-day the policeman does everything but midwifery. He is called in to advise upon almost everything, and I can assure the Home Secretary that he has done no better thing in his life than to give everybody an opportunity of appeal past watch committees and chief constables.
Complaints have come to me as a Member of Parliament about the power of chief constables. If a chief constable takes umbrage at a man and fines him, there is often no promotion for him. When he is fined and reduced in rank it does not only affect him for that time; it affects his pension. If a man is reduced from inspector to sergeant and lives 10 years on his pension, some hon. Members may know what he has to pay for his sin. The reason why there have been so few appeals in the last 15 years in county areas is that if a man appealed it was all right, but if the decision went against him the chief constable was still there at the top, and the poor fellow was left at his mercy with a load he could not bear. This is an opportunity for young men to go forward fearlessly for promotion. If some watch committees know that the case they are considering will go to the Home Secretary, they will be more careful in coming to a decision. Watch committees are not quite as popular as many think they are. I do not know the watch committee at Southampton—

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Very good.

Mr. Ritson: I should have expected the hon. Member to say that. I can assure him that we have had differences of opinion on our watch committee. Some of these bodies have dreaded the influence of people who were using their power to obtain promotion. Now there is this second court of appeal. A man can appeal to the watch committee and can bring an inspector or superintendent in to

give evidence for him if he is not a good speaker, although I have yet to find a policeman who could not adequately defend himself. When the decision has gone against him the man can go to the Home Secretary. He has another court; nothing is taken from him.
I was nervous about the Home Secretary taking over the police, but I can say that as far as courts of appeal are concerned they will be welcomed not only by the police but by the public in general. I have given every encouragement to the maintenance of good relationship between the public and the police. Formerly, the only policemen employed were those with plenty of muscle and strength who could, without any argument, use their force to remove what they thought had to be removed. Now we have an intelligent class of men, brought up cleanly and honourably. It is true that some may go wrong afterwards. I have seen magnificent fellows fail under the temptations that come to a policeman. Nobody who has not been a policeman can know what temptations there are in the police force. In the days when a policeman received £1 4s. 5d. a week and was told to live in a respectable locality and dress his family well, it was difficult to pass on a bookmaker if he came along with a 10s. tip. But now conditions are different; they are second to none in the police forces of the world. If the men do not behave themselves, they deserve all they get. If they refuse to do what is right or are corrupt, then they have no right to be protected, either by the Home Secretary or anybody else. As I have said before, this Bill will be welcomed by the public and the authorities concerned, and I, personally, welcome it because there is this last appeal to the Home Secretary, which I believe is right and proper.

Mr. Reakes: I want to express my regret that the Home Office did not send out a circular to the watch committees in time for them to consider the Bill and, if necessary, to make their representations to the Member of Parliament for the constituency. I am a member of the watch committee for the county borough of Wallasey, and as such I hope I am above suspicion. I was present at their meeting on Thursday when the town clerk read a communication and when it was felt that we had not been treated with the consideration we


deserved. Now there is no time for watch committees to pass an opinion on this Bill, and I consider it is treating such committees with scant attention. Let Members of this House remember that watch committees have served the country and its police administration with marked success. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could not challenge that statement. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman has not given us one reason why we should whittle down the powers of watch committees, or one reason why this important matter should be brought up during the war, when it has no relation whatever to the prosecution of the war. What surprises me more than anything else is that the Measure is to be a permanent feature of police administration. I would have hesitated to have intervened in the Debate if the Home Secretary had decided to make the Bill a war-time Measure, as in the case of the amalgamation of police forces.
This Bill is to be passed to-day by a House of Commons far too old, from the point of view of the last election, to deal with these drastic Measures. The Bill will tie the hands of future legislators on a matter of supreme importance. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) that the Measure is an important step in the direction of the central control of the police forces of the country. I can see that sticking out a mile. It is a Whitehall dream to nationalise the police forces and do away with local authorities' powers in the administration of the local police forces. I say that is entirely unfair, and I claim the right, having been a member of a watch committee for nearly 10 years, to object to the methods adopted in this matter. If it could be proved that the war effort needed this Bill, I would not say another word, but I suggest the least that can be done is that the operation of the Bill should be restricted to the war-time period only and that it should come up for reconsideration when the police administration policy of the future is under consideration by the House. It should be remembered that all the standing committees of local government have a direct relationship with the people. It is the people who elect town councillors and it is the town councillors who, under the Local Government Act, set up these important

standing committees. Once a Measure such as this has undermined the influence of an important standing committee such as the watch committee, we shall find similar things happening with regard to education, and we shall see the President of the Board of Education setting up some sort of machinery to give Whitehall a greater grip on the educational administration of local areas.
I suggest with all sincerity that the House is taking too much upon itself with regard to legislation which has no relation to the war effort. It is grossly unfair. This is a highly controversial matter. The policemen in the districts will not welcome this Bill. I am not concerned about the defects of the watch committees. Of course, they are not perfect. What municipal body or standing committee is perfect? What body of men in this country is perfect? There is none that is perfect, but we never quote their imperfections as an excuse for changing our system of government or for setting up new principles which will be quoted as a precedent. I sincerely hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter. I want to be helpful, but in this particular matter I hope the Measure will not be made a permanent feature of police administration, and that we shall not tie the hands of a future elected House of Commons in dealing with this and other matters which will of necessity come up for review at the end of hostilities. [Interruption.] It is pretty vague to me what they lose in the matter of appeals, but, when they are made, they are not final, though we are the judges of local conditions and the local circumstances prevailing. I quite understand the interruption, and it is possible that I have not a proper grip of the thing owing to the fact that the Home Office did not send out the information to watch committee members in time for us to give it consideration.

Mr. Butcher: I think some of us have tended to forget that the Home Secretary's proposals of 14th October did not cover the police forces as a whole, because he stated that amalgamations would only take place where military necessity arose, and I feel that, if it were necessary to bring in a Bill amending the Police Act, 1927, hurried legislation is rarely wise, and I cannot see any ground for congratulation to the Home Secretary on this. If it was decided


to bring in legislation, the greatest consideration and forethought should have been given, and the right hon. Gentleman should have borne in mind not only the promise he himself gave but also the recommendation of the Select Committee in 1932 that there should be in the case of joint police bodies and county police forces something similar to the watch committees and standing joint committees, and that a right of appeal should lie to them. The tribute that the right hon. Gentleman very properly paid to the police forces was earned by them under the system that he is now trying to alter and adjust on the ground of war-time necessity.
I was not able to take part in the Debate in October, but I feel that an attempt is being made by the Home Office to force through, under this disguise and on the excuse of the nation's need in war-time, some policy on which they have set their hearts for a long time. There is no doubt in my mind either that in the Home Secretary they found a bosom friend. I believe he has not a great deal of faith in the ability of small local authorities. Having served on a large authority, he is perhaps prepared to allow them a greater measure of virtue, but small authorities are not to be treated with respect. Their views are not to be considered, and rarely are they to be consulted. He gave a list of authorities who approved and some who approved with reservations, but he was discreetly silent on those who disapproved and other bodies which should have been, but were not, consulted. I think it is right that the police should have a right of appeal from the watch committee or the the standing joint committee. What kind of appeal ought they to have? Will it be against the justice of their sentence, the justice of their punishment, or the amount of it? To certain men it is a greater hardship to be fined half a crown when they do not consider it is right than to degrade a man and punish him severely for an offence which he admits he has committed.
Therefore, if we are to have, as we should have, a right of appeal, it should be as the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge) said, a right of appeal, on all questions of justice, not only whether a man has been properly punished but whether he should be punished at all for an offence if it has been committed. If

we widen the field to that extent, I do not think the Secretary of State is the right person to exercise the function. He is the Poo Bah of the Government. I do not trust him, but whether that is due to his record before he joined the Government or his record since, I do not know. I have never been able to make up my mind. Already his desk is cluttered with appeals under Regulation 18B in connection with which he has the services of an advisory tribunal, whose advice he equally neglects or reverses. We learn that in certain cases of police appeals he may be assisted by a tribunal on which will be somebody of experience in police administration and a lawyer. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, whom we congratulate on his recent honour, will give a definite assurance that this Home Secretary, who will not accept the advice of the tribunal in connection with 18B, proposes to be guided by the tribunal which will deal with police appeals? It is a simple assurance to ask for because the Home Secretary said that appeals in simple cases could be dealt with direct by him.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has that power already vested in him?

Mr. Butcher: I am only asking for information and for an assurance. I want to know whether, if the Home Secretary refers these appeals to a tribunal, he will be bound by its advice. If he will not be bound, I do not think an appeal to the Home Secretary is of any value. If he is to be bound by it, it will be better, rather than impose additional work on him, to set up a police board or Commission to deal with the appeals. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is overworked. Before he was promoted to the War Cabinet, he had two Parliamentary Secretaries to assist him—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security and the Under-Secretary to the Home Department—and he himself was engaged in the work of these two Departments. Now there is a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security short, and my right hon. Friend has entered the War Cabinet, with all that that involves, and on top of that he is enlarging the field of appeal work which he is undertaking. I bear in mind two words which he said. He said that some doctrine of experience will emerge,


just as Common Law has emerged, and I think that is a wise and sensible expectation, but perhaps he will agree with me that the person or body from whose decisions this doctrine of experience emerges should be able to devote ample time to the consideration of all the facts of the case, and that it should not come from an overworked Minister who is also a member of the War Cabinet. My own feeling is, as the Home Secretary himself said, that this is rather a high-powered machine to put into gear.
I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think that it has been hurriedly drawn and not very well drawn, and that it would have been very much better if, instead of rushing in with this Bill, the Home Secretary had gone to the pigeon-holes of the Home Office, got out the Report of 1932, considered how many of the recommendations would be appropriate at the present time, and put those into force. That would have been preferable to this step which, after all, only enlarges the burden on his shoulders and does not give a man a right of appeal as to the justice of any punishment which has been inflicted upon him but only an appeal against the scale of punishment which he has received.

Mr. Naylor: I do not think the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) is quite justified in the criticism he made of the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill. Surely he understands that this is not the initial legislation dealing with this subject, but is only concerned with making certain changes in an Act of Parliament passed in 1927, of which the police rank and file heartily approve. It is no question of rushing into legislation. Because an hon. Member disagrees with the terms of a Bill that does not give him any right to suggest that there is no justification for such a Bill, and at the risk of having my remarks regarded as redundant, I would like to add my commendation to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having introduced it. It has been said that the police force in this country is a fine body of men, and I heartily agree. When foreigners come here and visit the capital, it is common for them to remark upon the efficiency of our police. They say, "Your police are wonderful." It is only right that if the rank and file of the police feel they have a grievance arising out of the

fact that a certain Act does not go far enough in rectifying their grievances they should expect that the chief of the Home Office, whoever he may be, should take steps to deal with the position. I can assure the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) that as far as I can see there is no desire on the part of the Home Office to obtain even more power than it already possesses. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that he would be only too pleased to surrender some of the duties which he now has to perform.
He cannot be anxious to acquire more duties than he already has to discharge. We know that our police are an efficient body, but until recent years they had no means of expressing their grievances. A police trade union was formed and, in the Parliament presided over as Prime Minister by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, an attempt was made to obtain reinstatement in the Force for some of the men who had been discharged. It is a matter of regret to hon. Members on this side of the House that that measure of justice was not accorded to the victims of the police officers' strike in the twenties.
On one statement made by the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill, I should like a little further explanation. He said it would not be right that a man who had been fined 2s. 6d. should have a right of appeal to so high an authority as the Home Office. It may seem insignificant that a police officer should be fined half-a-crown for a minor offence and should want to trouble the Home Office on appeal against that fine, but I want the Home Secretary to bear in mind that it is not so much a desire to get the half-crown back that would make such a police officer appeal. He would appeal against the conviction and not because of the half-crown. Whether the fine be half-a-crown or half-a-guinea, it is important that the officer should have the same right in each instance to protest against the judgment that places a stigma upon his service in the Force. I hope that the Home Secretary will note this point with a view to leaving the door quite open to any sort of appeal coming from a police officer.
In reading the Bill, I do not find any exception made or limit drawn as to the kind of appeal that will or will not be considered by the Home Secretary. It seems that the Bill gives to the police force


in regard to minor offences the right which they now have with regard to major offences. Seeing that the incidence of fines, and the offences represented by the smaller fines, are just as likely to be misunderstood by those who inflict the penalty as are those involving much higher fines and much more serious punishment, I hope, if the Home Secretary intends to issue Regulations imposing limits of this character, he will pay heed to what I say, that it is the stigma and not the amount of the fine against which a man appeals. I suggest that the Home Secretary takes no notice of what has been said against the Bill from other quarters. It seems that hon. Members have spoken against the Bill rather because it happens to be a Labour Home Secretary who has introduced it, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill is simply a continuation of legislation that has previously been passed by the House and that the most vivid imagination could not describe it as rush legislation, introduced during a war, to be withdrawn when the war is over. I cannot subscribe to that point of view and I hope that the House will not subscribe to it.

Colonel Mills: I should like to intervene to say that I think the Bill is not only short, but very simple. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member who has just spoken that there is no need for the Home Secretary to take undue notice of what has been said by speakers against the Bill. I would like to congratulate the Home Secretary on having found time, in spite of his war preoccupations, to introduce this Bill. It seems to me a very democratic matter to extend the right of appeal for the police, and it is a matter for congratulation and not the reverse. I have been a member of a standing joint committee for 30 years, and chairman, I think, for 15. Personally, I am extremely glad that the right of appeal in this matter is not to the standing joint committee, but to the Home Secretary. I feel it is much more satisfactory for the police constable who is appealing to feel that he will get the most impartial outside consideration and that the committee to whom he might otherwise be appealing will not be prejudiced against him, because they are naturally in very much closer touch with the chief constable than they

can be with any individual constable or officer in the force.
I cannot see the danger that some Members see in this Bill, and I think it would be extremely pointless to make it a wartime Measure only. It should be a permanent one. The hon. Member for, I think, the Holland Division (Mr. Butcher), appeared to distrust and dislike the Bill because he distrusted the Home Secretary personally, but I am confident that the Home Secretary in the discharge of his great office will rise superior to any feelings of partiality and be the best possible referee in any dispute that may arise. I have never been a member of a watch committee, but I should have thought that just as I prefer that the standing joint committee should not have to be the judge in a matter of discipline between the chief constable and constables, it would be far better both for the chief constable in a borough force and for an officer in it that an appeal should be to as remote a body and person as possible, so that there might not be any suspicion that anybody is going to take one side or the other. I think the more remote the body the better, and I would therefore very much like to congratulate briefly the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill.

Mr. Logan: I would not have intervened except for two references, the first one from the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). He deplored the fact we had a dishonest Home Secretary.

Mr. Butcher: On a point of Order. It will be within the recollection of the House, and I am sure my hon. Friend opposite will agree on reflection, that the word "dishonest" was in no way in my mind, or used by me. I may use other words about the Home Secretary.

Mr. Logan: It was knowing the value of other words that I put what was in the hon. and gallant Member's mind into this language. [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] Withdraw what? Ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. Butcher: I rise on a point of Order. When the hon. Member said I suggested that the Home Secretary was dishonest I rose in my place and said that I did not use that word and that it was within the recollection of the House. The hon. Member said he was using words that were in my mind. I ask for your guidance and protection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I never heard the hon. Member use that word. If I had, I should have called him to order at once.

Mr. Logan: I have no need to retract anything I have said. I have only put into plain English the meaning of a word or words used by an hon. Member in exercising his right to speak in the House. The words used by the hon. Gentleman were these—that he Would hot trust the Home Secretary. I do not know whether trusting implies honesty or dishonesty in regard to the exercise of the right hon. Gentleman's duties. It is clear what is meant by referring to sending someone to be the judge, that the Government have found practically the right man to do this dirty job: that it was not a war-time Measure, and was not necessary. Then we had the hon. Member from Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) speaking of the rights and prerogatives which must be exercised by a watch committee. What wonderful bodies the watch committees of this country are taken to be, and how great are the people who are members of them, that they should exercise powers from which there is no appeal. Coming from the other side of the Mersey from Wallasey, I would point out when the people on the watch committees are spoken of as being elected, that we who live in a city have no power over them. People in a city may be placed on a watch committee by their parties, and when they have given a decision we have the minutes of the watch committee presented to the city council and carried in a few moments, and we cannot comment upon them. As we have no power over the committee, what right there is to bring the minutes before the city council, I do not know. If we say anything we are told to sit down. I happen to have been a member of a watch committee, and I do not like to see any autocratic body having absolute rights over the lives of people, any more than I would like to see a magistrate decide a case without there being any right of appeal. One knows that, even as it is, once a person has been wrongly convicted it is very hard to get the decision put right.
I am not going to eulogise the police. There are good and bad members of it, just as there are in every walk of life, and that applies both to the Liverpool side and to the Wallasey side of the Mersey. I have a knowledge of both sides, and I

am impartial. This is a grand opportunity for people in any city to have things done in a fairly honest, straightforward, upright manner. It gives an opportunity to anyone who thinks he has a grievance, as a member of a police force, to appeal to Caesar. It is not a question of whether it is a corrupt Caesar or not. It does not follow that because you are speaking from the Chair of Peter you are a saint, but you can give right decisions. An appeal to some authority outside the locality would be an act of justice to the man. He would feel that he was being well served. An appeal coming from the City of Liverpool, or perhaps the more reputable quarter of Wallasey, would enable one to get a matter before the Home Office, and someone besides the Home Secretary would go into the merits or demerits of the case. There would be an inquiry. I am convinced that when a man has a case to bring forward he feels he is being honestly dealt with by such procedure. There have been men in my experience, policemen, sergeants and inspectors, who, because they dare not say anything, have had to keep their mouths shut until the end of their days.
I do not consider that a watch committee should have power to say that their word is final and that there is no appeal. Wherever you allow the finality of authority to be vested in one particular body you make for corruption. It is better that a wider appeal should be given so that cases could be inquired into. Why have we a Court of Appeal? It is because we believe that when a case goes before it, it is dealt with impartially. I do not think that we have got that in some cases locally, and I feel that the Bill removes an anomaly that ought to be removed. If it would help to remove the anomaly of the autocratic power of watch committees, I would be better pleased. If the Home Secretary would bring in a Bill to deal with watch committees and decide their powers, and allow the body of a local council to deal with such matters, I would be better pleased that justice would be done all round.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): On the whole, this Bill has had a favourable reception, but I think I ought to reply briefly to three or four of the main criticisms which have been made. May I in the first instance clear away the misconception


which has been apparent in two or three of the speeches? It has been stated by more than one hon. Member that at present the police constable in a borough force has the right of appeal to the watch committee. That is not an actual statement of the position. The true position is that whereas in the county force the chief constable is the disciplinary authority, in the borough force the disciplinary authority is the watch committee itself. It is a question of the powers being separated in the establishment of the borough police, whereas in the county forces the executive power and the disciplinary power are both combined in the person of the chief constable.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that hold good in Scotland?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend in introducing the Bill said, I think, that the same position does hold in Scotland except in the City of Glasgow. In all cases except in that city the chief constable is the disciplinary authority.
That being the case, this Bill takes nothing away from the powers of watch committees. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) was rather indignant. He said that we were not treating watch committees with the consideration they deserved and that we were undermining their influence. This Bill takes nothing at all away from the present powers of watch committees. What it does is to give the right of appeal to the Home Secretary from the decision of a watch committee. I have never heard of a court which had the slightest confidence in the fairness of its own judgment objecting to the power of appeal being granted from those judgments. When the Court of Criminal Appeal was first established—I think it was in 1908—its establishment was not only welcomed by Judges of the High Court, but they actually took a large part in promoting the establishment of this Court of Appeal because they thought an additional safeguard was necessary and desirable. I therefore cannot for one moment understand the attitude of watch committees in saying that their feelings are hurt or that their influence is being undermined because the right of appeal from their decisions is being granted in certain cases.
The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge), in his speech on 14th October on the Defence Regulations providing for

the amalgamation of police forces, seemed very keen on a proposal of this kind, and, although he is to some extent one of the godfathers of the present Bill, he seemed to me to-day to be a little ashamed of his relationship to it.

Mr. Collindridge: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in describing me thus. I welcome this Bill, but a merged borough policeman will lose his opportunity of having his case tried by his watch committee. He has now only the right of appeal to the Home Secretary, and that is not an adequate return for what he loses. I may be one of the godfathers, but I do not like the stepchild.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to hear his assurance that he welcomes the Bill. But I think he thought we ought to give even wider power of appeal than we, in fact, are doing, and I think he desired that even small fines imposed by chief constables should become subject to a possible appeal to the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend answered that point. It is obvious that in cases where small fines have been imposed it would be absurd to have the whole thing formally reheard by a Court of Inquiry and decided by the Home Secretary. On the other hand, supposing we fix a point at which a fine becomes a possible subject of appeal, we are tempting disciplinary authorities to impose a fine just below the point where appeal becomes possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), who informed me that he would be unable to stay for the remainder of the Debate, and the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) both referred to the resolution that was passed by the Association of Municipal Corporations concerning this matter. That resolution begins by saying that the committee of the Association dealing with this matter do not think it necessary to oppose the Police (Appeals) Bill. At the same time, they go on to say that they are not aware of any circumstances which render that Bill necessary in the case of borough police forces the members of which have at the present time a right of appeal to the watch committee. I have already dealt with that point and explained that there is not in the borough force a right of appeal to the watch committee; there is simply a substitution, in the case of the borough force, of the watch


committee as the disciplinary authority in place of the Chief Constable in the county force. The third paragraph of the resolution suggests that in view of the proposals now under consideration for the amalgamation of police forces, it is urgently necessary that effect should be given to the recommendation embodied in paragraph 49 of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1932. It then quotes the recommendation that:
In any case where the police force of a borough is merged in that of a county, all members of the county force should have a right of appeal against the decision of the Chief Constable in matters of discipline to the Standing Joint Committee.
The resolution went on to urge the Government to introduce legislation on those lines. Clearly, it is unreasonable to provide a right of appeal only in cases where an amalgamation takes place. Obviously, one must deal with all county police forces on the same lines, and it would be quite unreasonable to give an extended right of appeal to certain policemen and not to others. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Butcher) said that we had introduced this legislation without proper thought or consideration, that we had rushed into it. In point of fact, if hon. Members will look at the Second Reading Debate of the Police (Appeals) Bill, 1927, they will see that the extended rights of appeal now being given to police officers generally were urged on the Government at that time by Mr. Jack Hayes, who was a Member of the House for a great many years, and who had had great experience of police matters. Therefore, this is no new proposal that we are introducing.
One or two of my hon. Friends seem to fear that it is all part of a scheme for centralising the administration of police forces in the hands of the Home Office; I can assure them it is nothing of the kind. The effect of this proposal will be to strengthen the confidence of the ordinary police officer in the fairness of the administration of discipline in the force in which he serves. In so far as it does that, it will weaken the case for centralising the administration of police forces. It will tend to even out differences in the administration of discipline as between one force and another, and it will give individual police officers much greater confidence in the security of their positions and the feelings that they are

getting a fair deal. We are making this alteration in the form of a permanent alteration of the law because it is, in our view, a good thing to do and a thing which ought to have been done many years ago.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that a police officer will be in a similar position to a chief constable as regards a watch committee and that he will have a right of appeal to a higher authority, which he did not have before?

Mr. Peake: He will have a right of appeal in exactly the same way to the Home Secretary in two cases in which he did not have it before.

Mr. Walkden: For an inquiry into any injustice that he may suffer from?

Mr. Peake: No, there are two specific cases, one where the rate of pay is reduced and the other where he is reduced in rank. In both those cases there will be a right of appeal to the Home Secretary whatever the force in which the man is serving. [Interruption.] I dealt with that point. I said there were good reasons for not proceeding on the lines of the Select Committee's Report, which draws a distinction between police officers whose forces have been amalgamated and officers whose forces have not been touched by the amalgamation measures.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman made clear to watch committees the limitation of their powers, because there is the Ipswich case of an officer charged with theft who was dismissed by the watch committee and refused any appeal to a court? It is outrageous that the watch committee should assume the power of a public court and decide that a man is guilty of such a serious offence and dismiss him and then the man is refused any appeal to a public court. Is it made clear to watch committees that they have no right to do any such thing?

Mr. Peake: The Bill does not alter the law in that respect in any way. If a constable is dismissed by a watch committee, in any event ever since 1927, he has had a right of appeal to the Home Office, and the conditions of the appeal are laid down by the Act of 1927.

Mr. Gallacher: That is not clear enough. Has a watch committee the right to try a constable on a charge of theft and, if the man appeals to the Home Secretary, should he not automatically have a right to a trial in court?

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS (REGULATIONS)

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order-in-Council dated 23rd July, 1942, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, amending Regulations 26A, 27A, 27B and 28A of, and adding Regulations 32c, 76B and 79D to, the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and amending Regulation 13 of the Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942, a copy of which was presented to this House on 24th November, be annulled.
It is not my duty on this occasion to make any attack on any member of the Government or even on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am here for the purpose of dealing with what appears to my hon. Friends and myself to be somewhat of an abuse in the method in which Orders in Council are working at the present time. I am speaking on the question of Parliamentary control of legislation and on that question alone. I am sure it is one which will be of interest to every Member of the House, in every party. As the House is aware, Orders in Council are first presented. They are then laid on the Table, and unless challenged after a period of time they come into operation and become law. At the present time, apart from the Order with which I propose specifically to deal, there are between 80 and 100 Orders lying on the Table to-day. I venture to suggest that it would be difficult for the ordinary layman to understand many of them, and that we are faced by the danger and the difficulty that the more we have Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act lying on the Table which are difficult to understand, the more the tendency is for them automatically

to pass into law without their being properly considered by members of the House from the point of view of whether abuses may exist.
The Regulation I have before me is a classic example of what I regard as rather a bad new tendency in Parliament, that is, to have a considerable number of Regulations relating to completely different Government Departments lumped together under one Order. This Order first deals with Regulations 26A, 27A, and 27B, which relate to Civil Defence and fire prevention duty. We then come to 28A, which deals with the National Fire Service. Then we come to 38c, which is something completely different and deals with the Pharmacy Act. We then jump from that to 76B, again in the same Order, which is a Regulation dealing with penalties for the illegal export of goods. We have in addition an amendment of Regulation 13 of the Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations which has to come into action with 76B. We then pass on to still another Regulation, 79D, which deals with the restriction of appeals by charities to persons living outside this country or in the Isle of Man. There are thus a whole number of different Government Departments affected by the same Order.
Suppose there were one matter alone in this Order which was liable to abuse and to which objection ought to be made. As matters stand, it would be necessary to object to the whole Order. That is a bad system, which the House and the Government ought to consider amending. That is not all. A number of those Orders are difficult to understand. They relate to various Acts which it is necessary to look up in order to understand them. There is no explanatory memorandum with the Order, and it is difficult for hon. Members in war-time particularly to have time to go through Order after Order to check whether Parliament ought to object to them or not.
It is difficult enough in peace-time, and in war-time it is almost impossible, but unless there is some alteration in the present system the only thing which can be done by Members of Parliament who believe legislation by Departments to be a bad thing if carried to excess and who find an Order which they cannot understand is to put down a Prayer and get that Order debated, so that a proper explanation may be given on the Floor of the


House. In war-time, when all hon. Members are busy, and Ministers are exceedingly busy, it does not seem to me ideal procedure to have Debates at the end of the ordinary Business of the House day after day in order that unintelligible Orders may be explained by Ministers. I hope that we may get an undertaking from the Government that they will consider the possibility of improving the procedure.
I suggest that a great many of the existing difficulties might be swept away if it were decided that one could not include in the same Order matters dealt with by a variety of Government Departments, and that we should have a Select Committee set up to "vet." these Orders when they first appear and before they are laid on the Table; and beyond that, and perhaps even more important, the Order should have an explanatory memorandum attached so that it is possible for an ordinary individual to know what it means. My hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy), who will second this Prayer, will deal more broadly with the question of intelligibility, the impossibility of understanding these Orders at first glance. I have confined myself to the two main principles, first, the lumping together of the. Regulations of a considerable number of Departments in one Order, and, second, the lack of an explanatory memorandum to assist hon. Members to understand Orders.

Mr. Levy: I beg to second the Motion.
May I first correct an observation of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Flight-Lieut. Raikes)? He said that these Orders do not operate until after they have been laid on the Table. I am sure he knows as well as I do that all these Orders begin to operate immediately they are made. They are laid on the Table for approval or disapproval by the House. In the event of the House disapproving, what has already been done under a Regulation remains, but the Regulation does not operate further. I would point out that we are not attacking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We realise that the organisation of the fire services is quite good, though from time to time weak spots have had to be tightened up, and that has been done by Regulation. We are objecting and have objected for a good many years

to legislation by Regulation, but if we are to have legislation by Regulation then let us have Regulations we can understand. For the past three years we have had hundreds of rules and Regulations. There are at least 100 Regulations now in the Vote Office, and I will guarantee that no Member could understand more than two per cent. of them unless he were prepared to spend hours and hours in the Library looking up the cross references. Only in that way could he get any real idea of what the Orders relate to.
Therefore we are making a protest under three heads. We protest against the methods of the Government in respect of the issue of these Regulations; we protest against the form of the Regulations being of the omnibus variety, and we protest against the complex wording of these Regulations. Let me indicate the history of this Regulation. This particular Regulation was passed as an Order in Council on 23rd July, 1942. It became operative forthwith and was embodied in the Defence Regulations Volume, 12th Edition, of 17th September. It was not laid upon the Table of this House, if you please, until 24th November, and then it had to lay for 28 days.
That Regulation is absolutely unintelligible to any ordinary Member of Parliament, but it affects all Members of Parliament and our constituents. This is not a party issue, but a general issue as to whether we, as Members of Parliament, are being treated with the respect with which we expect to be treated by Members of the Government. Take the particular paragraph 6. This is what it says:
Under sub-paragraph A of paragraph 3A of the said Regulation 27A, after the words the said requirement' there shall be inserted the words 'or attending outside working hours for instruction and training related to those duties and of travelling expenses to persons attending during their working hours for such instruction and training' and at the end of the said sub-paragraph there shall be added the words 'or for attendance outside his working hours for such instruction and training; and, at the end of sub-paragraph (b) of the said paragraph 3A, there shall be added the words 'for the purpose of the calculating of the said aggregate periods in the case of any person, any period which he is required to attend outside his working hours for instruction and training' shall be included.
Can anybody in this House be said to understand that jargon? I have tried to understand it. It appeared that it was being embodied in Volume I of the 12th edition, so I turned up Volume I of the


12th edition. Apparently the Regulation is for securing that all persons of either sex being British subjects to whom the Order applies and who are of the age prescribed for their sex, shall be registered for the purpose of part-time duties, and it says:
Regulation substituted: S.R. &amp; O. 1941 (No. 68) 11, page 12; amended: S.R. &amp; O. 1941 (No. 1406) 11, p. 87 and S.R. &amp; O. 1942 Nos. 801, 961, 1279 and 1442. Former Regulations inserted: S.R. &amp; O. 1940 (No. 1681) 11, p. 116.
If it were not so tragic, it would be comic. If you introduced this Order on a music-hall stage, it would run for a thousand nights. The criticism does not apply entirely to the Minister. But every one of the Ministers does the same. Let me, if I may, with great respect, give just an illustration of Order 2563. This is what paragraph (2) says:
For the words 'Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939' in paragraph (1) of, and the side note to, the said Regulation six there shall be substituted the words 'Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Act, 1939'; and for the words 'paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939,' in paragraph (2) of that Regulation there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2) of section one of the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Act, 1939'.
It is a joke, but I am suggesting with great respect that it is serious. After all, in the Vote Office at the present time there are over 100 Orders and Regulations. Each is important to every Member, not only in this House but throughout the whole country. These Orders are operated immediately they are passed in Council, and nobody knows what they mean. If my right hon. Friend was at the other side of the Table instead of this side of the Table, he would be one of the first to criticise in very strong language. A number of these Orders are probably good. A large number of them are not good. We are suggesting that a Select Committee should be set up to vet these Orders and to see what they really mean. What we are asking in making this protest is that when these Orders are laid on the Table they shall be laid on the Table in simple language, so that Members of Parliament can understand them, and all those people affected by them can also understand them. If for some reason it is impossible because of the cross references to make them intelligible in the form I have suggested, there should be attached to them an explanatory memorandum, so that any Member of Parliament who goes to the

Vote Office or has these Orders sent shall be able to understand them.
We see criticisms in the Press whereby so few Members are supposed to be listening to the Debates in this House. If these Orders, and Orders of this kind, are to take up all the time and attention of Members in the Library in looking up cross references so that they can understand them, they will not have time to come and listen to these Debates at all. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. (Sir H. Williams) is an adept who knows the Library. He can put his fingers on all books of reference quite readily. I guarantee it will take him at least three or four hours, with all his knowledge, to be able to look up these cross references in order to get an intelligent idea of what these Orders mean. So far as I am concerned, I tried to the best of my ability and spent several hours. I ultimately had to employ somebody who could put his fingers on these references books. I asked him if he would go through it in order that I could make some sort of explanation to this House in an intelligent manner, knowing what I was talking about. He assured me it took him six hours.
Apart from that, is it right that in an Order of this kind, which deals particularly with Civil Defence and the Fire Services, you should deal with foreign pharmacists, who are going to be temporarily registered under the Pharmacy Act? Also, the Order provides penalties for the illegal export of goods. What has that to do with Civil Defence and Fire Services? In addition, you have restrictions on appeals to overseas charities. All these things are embodied in one Order, and that Order is absolutely unintelligible. I have made my protest. A number of hon. Members, I hope, will want to take part in the Debate, and if our protests bring forward the remedies we desire there will be no need for us to continue to put down Prayers calling upon Ministers concerned to come to the Table to explain the particulars and meanings of their own Orders. But unless we get these Orders in simple language, or with a memorandum attached, I hope that I shall have the support of all Members of the House in putting down Prayers day by day until we get the Government to produce their pamphlets in such a form that they are intelligible, not only to Members of Parliament


but to people outside who are affected by them.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think it would be more convenient for me to make a few observations now. Fortunately, I have with me my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be very happy to give the House information at a later stage. Two main points were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Flight-Lieutenant Raikes). I have certainly nothing to complain about in the tone or the terms of his speech, or, indeed, in the rather different kind of speech—a rather more lively and humorous speech, if I may say so—by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). They put their points with clarity, and I think the House is fully seized of the matter. The two points were that, at any rate in some of these Orders and Defence Regulations, it is difficult for the layman to follow them and get a reasonable idea of what they are about, and—this is essentially a practical point—that in the case of the Order which is now being debated it is a rather varied product to find in one Defence Regulation. I am bound to admit that. The only reasons are that it is one meeting of His Majesty in Council which produced this particular Order in Council in the first place, and in the second place that, as an economy in printing, which I am afraid we get a little concerned about now and again, we thought it better to print them together, as they were made at the same time by His Majesty in Council. I have a suggestion to make which I think may be helpful on the two substantial points raised in the excellent speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southeast Essex.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elland, who seconded, went on to a further point about which I am not so happy. He suggested very briefly—and I am not complaining, because his brevity was partly to meet my convenience, for which I am grateful—he suggested that there should be a Select Committee of the House which, in his own language, should "vet" these Defence Regulations or Orders in Council. The proposal, as my hon. Friend indicated, is not exactly a

new one. There was a Committee appointed by the Labour Government in, I think, 1930, on Ministerial Powers, presided over by Lord Donoughmore. It was a most important Committee, and it recommended that, in the case of the peacetime Statutory Rules and Orders, made by Ministers pursuant to Statute, there should be a Select Committee, presumably one in this House and one in their Lordships' House. At any rate something of the kind has been done in another place. It was a Select Committee to examine the Statutory Rules and Orders. It was not expected to pronounce upon the policy or the principles of the Regulations but to draw the attention of the House to such aspects of them as the Committee thought should be brought to their attention. I do not know how a distinction could have been made between matters at which the House ought to look and matters involving principle and policy. That recommendation was made in peacetime in respect to the numerous Regulations that are made under statutory authority; by, for example, the Minister of Health under various Acts of Parliament and by the Minister of Transport under various Acts of Parliament, including the Act of Parliament which I brought in—the Road Traffic Act, 1930—which gave no end of powers to the Minister of Transport to make Regulations, and whereby he could deal with matters of detail which involved no political or controversial problems and make them more adaptable to changing circumstances. Despite the fact that that recommendation was made for peace-time, be it remembered, it was not adopted by any Government. Although I cannot say from my own recollection whether there have been many discussions about it in the House in peace-time, it looks as if the House, broadly speaking, have accepted the view of the various Governments concerned that this was not a wise thing to do. It is not for me to argue whether that view was right or wrong, but if that view was held by Governments in time of peace—

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University): There is an Opposition in peace-time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: It sounds as though we have got one now. I do not see that that makes the slightest difference. This Committee on Ministerial Powers was


appointed by a party Government when party Government and Opposition existed. The issue was a live one in those days. My hon. Friend made an intervention which caused cheers in a certain quarter of the House, but I cannot see that it is relevant to the issue, to the effect that there was no opposition.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when you have an organised Opposition it is their function to examine all these things, and therefore you have an organisation which watches the Government, but it is missing in war-time?

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, these doctrines of Parliamentary responsibility and duties of Members of Parliament that have been uttered shock me; they really do. Is it only the duty of an Opposition to watch what a Government is doing and to watch Statutory Rules and Orders? Is it the case that Members of Parliament supporting the Government have no responsibility to watch these things? If that is so, what has the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) been doing for so many years, watching these things, whether a supporter of the Government or an opponent of the Government, with very great ability and vigour and embarrassing Ministers time after time?

Sir H. Williams: In peace-time you have few of these, but in war-time you have masses—there are over 100 lying on the Table of the House now—and no individual Member in this House can achieve the task.

Mr. Morrison: The war-time difficulty which I admit is a difficulty for Members and especially for Ministers—if the House is going to be in prayerful mood, Ministers will have to be on the spot about these regulations. But that argument, which was made in respect of peace-time by a responsible Committee appointed by the Government of the day, was rejected, although not by that Government. My recollection is that that Government did not have much time to consider that report before they were removed from office.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

Mr. Morrison: I have not left it; I am trying to get to it. Successive Governments came in—Mr. MacDonald's Coalition, Mr. Baldwin's Government, Mr. Neville Chamberlain's Government, and then this Government, and so far as I know all have taken the view that that would be an unwise thing to do.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has now left the point. I was going to ask whether his argument was this, that because ministerial supporters were under an obligation to look into these Regulations it was open to the Government to make them as obscure as possible?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, but I will come to that also. There is a duty on every Member of Parliament to examine these things. Nor do I accept the view that an ordinary Member of Parliament is in a position in which there is no obligation on him to make himself reasonably skilled in these matters.

Sir Edward Grigg: How are we to exercise these obligations if an Order is not laid on the Table until five months after it is made?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about that. That is the worst of relying upon another hon. Member instead of examining a thing for one's self. However, I think it would be far better to let me give my exposition now and cover all the points that have been raised. Members of Parliament are persons of quite average intelligence; they are legislators.

Mr. Levy: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) was wrong in saying something about an Order being made five months before it was laid on the Table. Well, I have looked it up, and I have found that the Order was passed on 25th July and not laid on the Table of this House until 24th November. That is a definite and precise fact.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will get himself right into the mud in a minute. I will come to that presently. I was suggesting that this House is formed of hon. Members who make Acts of Parliament. They make the law; they are responsible for the wording and terms of Acts of Parliament which leave this House. They are people who are expected to become


reasonably skilled in the construction, examination and passing of Acts of Parliament. The public outside would think we were not very good at our job if we were not able to do this. We ought not to accept the view that no average Member of Parliament ought not to be expected to understand the wording of a Defence Regulation, which, after all, is an exactly similar problem to the understanding of the wording of a statutory Act of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But it is; it is essentially delegated legislation.

Sir Irving Albery: One is made in the House and the other is not.

Mr. Morrison: If we are to say to the public outside that an ordinary Member of Parliament ought to be able to examine an amendment to legislation but cannot understand it, it will be unwise, except, of course, in connection with the more complex and difficult cases, to which I will come in a moment. If we were to go to a Select Committee, I think we should be wrongly approaching the whole problem of emergency legislation and emergency powers. If there is a case in peace time for what is done by Statutory Rules and Orders, surely there is a much stronger case in time of war when Orders having the force of law must be passed with much greater alacrity and with much greater speed and when the Executive, I suggest, must be armed with the power of modifying Orders in Council and Defence Regulations not only in the interests of the Government but of the general body of citizens.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says that a Select Committee would delay the Government; but these Orders are operative the moment they are signed by His Majesty, and therefore, the Select Committee procedure would come afterwards. The object of the Select Committee would be to draw the attention of the House to the question whether they should be annulled. It would not hold up the action of the Executive.

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree. I will come to that point later. However, what I said is not entirely irrelevant. It is the case that this form of legislation in war time, in the last war and in this war, was and is adopted because of the urgency of a war situation and the necessity of

Ministers being able to act with speed, in the first place, the necessity of Parliament delegating its authority, in the second place, in order that legislation may be passed with alacrity, and the knowledge that Ministers are bound to be very heavily occupied with administrative and executive work of one sort and another. If in the making of those Defence Regulations Ministers had to expect that somebody would be called by a Select Committee, because they would want the aid of somebody to give an explanation of the Defence Regulations, and if the Select Committee had the power to recommend this, that and the other by way of change, or to draw attention to certain features, it is clear that either some persons from the State Departments—and I doubt whether they would be enough on a matter of this kind, where elements of policy, and sometimes highly controversial policy, arise—and presumably Ministers, would be required to attend fairly frequently for considerable periods to be examined, and even cross-examined. I think this would be putting an undue strain on Ministers and an undue tax on their time during a war. But what would be the result? If the Minister satisfied the Select Committee that a Defence Regulation was reasonable, and they reported to the House that they had no observations to make or thought there was no feature to which they need draw attention, and if the inference, therefore, was that the Defence Regulation was reasonable, then the position of the individual Member of Parliament functioning as a critic of a Defence Regulation would, I venture to say, be not strengthened, but weakened.

Mr. Levy: He does not function now, and never has done so.

Mr. Morrison: He does function. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) functioned on a Defence Regulation that I made about Sunday entertainments with very great effect. Members do function and they ought to function, because it is their duty to do so. But if in the case to which I am referring a Member got up and moved a Prayer against a Defence Regulation, what would be the reply of the Minister? He would reply on the merits of the case within the limits that he thought were appropriate, but then he would say, "After all, this Defence Regulation has been most carefully examined by the Select Committee. The Select


Committee have seen me, or seen an officer from the Department. They have reported to the House that they have no observations. Surely, it is hardly necessary that the House should wish to interfere with it." The House knows that it pays respect, and rightly, very great respect, to Select Committees. Therefore, I should have thought such a proposal would be going too far, certainly in time of war, whatever might be said about it in time of peace. I suggest that the individual critic on the Floor of the House would find himself weakened if he had to wrestle not only with the arguments of the Minister, but to face a Select Committee's report which, broadly speaking, recorded contentment with the terms and the nature of the Regulation. If there was ever a matter on which the individual Member of Parliament ought to function, I suggest it is on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland referred to a point about a Defence Regulation that was made on 23rd July and did not appear until 24th November. He could not understand why it was floating about all that time. The answer is that it was made on 23rd July and it was laid in the ordinary way and then the Parliamentary Session came to an end, and the House authorities advised that it would be necessary to start all over again and lay it at the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Levy: Except that the new Session was started on 11th November and this was not laid until the 24th.

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but there is no obligation to lay it on a particular date. It was done as soon as might be. The 28 days run from the second date. I admit that there is more than one subject dealt with in the Order. If we were to print the whole of the Order again and show the Amendments, the amount of printing would be enormous. I do not think there is a strong enough case to do that. What I propose to meet the hon. Member's point, which is a reasonable one, is that all Amendments made at the same meeting of the Privy Council will continue to be printed in one document under a single heading, and we will group all the connected Amendments to form a separate Order in Council even though it is printed in the one document. The advantage of that will be that, within the document, Members will know that A and

B are separate Orders in Council. It seems ridiculous that, if Members want to present a Prayer against a particular thing that they object to, they have to move the rejection of a whole series of other things to which they do not object at all. It is not a businesslike Parliamentary procedure and it is not fair to them, because it puts them on a false issue, and it is not fair to the House, which cannot give a straight vote on the thing about which it is really worried. If we print them so that it is clear that there is in one document not one Order in Council covering a miscellaneous collection of matters like the one in question, but a series of Orders in Council, dealing respectively with groups of connected, amendments, that I think will meet the point.
I come to the more definite question of the explanation of these Orders. It is a nice constitutional point how far it is desirable for either Parliament or the Executive to give this in publishing what is after all a completed piece of legislation. These Orders are as final as an Act of Parliament, subject to a Prayer against them. Once that period has gone—indeed, before it has gone—they have the force of law directly they are made. They may be upset later on by the House within the 28 days, but they have the force of law and there are traditional and constitutional objections to either Parliament or the Executive exercising some influence on the Courts by recording what they mean when they pass these enactments. I do not say that that is at-all involved in this issue, but even on that there is a great deal to be said one way or the other. Therefore, the Government are not too anxious to enter into memoranda of explanation except in cases where there is a satisfactory case for that being done. The great bulk of these Defence Regulations are reasonably easy to understand on the face of them, even to the layman who is not a Member of Parliament and is not accustomed to handle Bills. The bulk of them are readily ascertainable on the face of them. The others are simple amendments, in which case it is a matter of comparing the amendments with the text of the instruments which are being amended.
I agree that there are some cases, even on the standard I have rather indicated as one we ought to expect from Members of Parliament in which it is too much to expect even Members to follow an Order with reasonable readiness. In-deed,


there might even be cases where they cannot make out what it is all about. I admit that that occurs on special occasions. I recognise that some Regulations are more complicated and more difficult for Members to follow. If a Regulation is of such a character that there is real difficulty in understanding its effect, the appropriate Minister, who may or may not be me, will issue a short explanatory memorandum for the information of the House. I will go further and say that if the Regulation has been issued without such a memorandum and a request is made to the Minister concerned for the issue of one, sympathetic consideration will be given to the request. I think that what I have said indicates that not only I but colleagues in the Government who are concerned in these matters have at fairly short notice—I am making no complaint about that—done our best to give it responsible consideration with a view to meeting the wishes and the convenience of the House. I do not say that the suggestions I have made meet my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-east Essex 100 per cent., but they substantially meet the points he has raised. I trust that in these circumstances the House will see its way to think that the Government have acted reasonably and that this Prayer may be withdrawn.

Mr. Levy: My right hon. Friend has not met my point. He has said that this is legislation by Regulation, and I suggested that it was not unreasonable that we should have an explanatory memorandum of the Regulations. My right hon. Friend has said that he only wants to do that on request.

Sir Herbert Williams: I think that my right hon. Friend went further than that. He said that in all cases in which he thought that from the nature of it, the Order would be obscure a memorandum would be provided, and that in other cases where Members thought Orders were obscure sympathy would be extended to a request for a memorandum. But the Home Secretary said that on constitutional grounds we have to be very careful about a memorandum. I would ask him to look through the Bills in a Session. He will find that in the case of nearly all complicated Bills there is either a memorandum on the front of the Bill—

Mr. H. Morrison: Dealing with financial aspects.

Sir H. Williams: Financial, and sometimes other aspects. If there is not a memorandum attached to a Bill there is generally an explanation issued as a White Paper. But that, of course, is not binding on the courts or on anybody else. The memorandum or the White Paper merely indicates what the Government have in mind. I think that in this case the Home Secretary has given us a measure of concession, but I completely disagree with him in his reference to a Select Committee. It is not merely the case that we want these Orders looked at. We want the civil servants who draft them to know in advance that they are going to be looked at. That is the important thing. We want them to know that there is a policeman about upstairs. The Home Secretary says that we shall be put under a disability, because if we pray against something which the Select Committee has considered, we shall find that that has spoiled our chances. Obviously no Member is going to put down a Prayer against an Order that has been looked at by the Select Committee unless upon further information it is realised that the Select Committee has missed something, and nobody would mind about that, and in any case it is only about one in a hundred of these Orders that have been prayed against. We want those who draft this unintelligible verbiage—because that is what it is, a lot of verbiage that is quite unnecessary—

Mr. Morrison: The same thing is said of Acts of Parliament.

Sir H. Williams: I know, but what is the justification for Acts of Parliament being so badly drafted? I would ask the Home Secretary to read the Public Health Act, 1875. There he will see an Act which was infinitely better drafted than most Acts. The old school of draftsmen has gone and drafting has deteriorated and the House has tolerated that, but I do not tolerate it. I think it is time that some Minister said to the draftsmen "What does all this stuff mean? Re-write it." Then we should get better Acts of Parliament. Let the House listen to this on page 5 of this Order. I do not know what it means. It is something about imports and exports:


Any person who

(a) contravenes any prohibition or restriction on the export of goods from the United Kingdom."

Then there is some other stuff, and it goes on—
shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Obviously the offence contemplated is a very serious one. Fourteen years is a terrible penalty. I daresay that certain people who have committed very grave offences may appreciate what the President of the Board of Trade was after, but 14 years is a terrible penalty;

Mr. Morrison: The black market.

Sir H. Williams: It may be, but it is not clear what persons are in the black market. I do not know whether if I were to put in a parcel a pair of gloves—presuming that their export is prohibited without a licence—and send them to a friend in another country, I should be offending. I might not have the faintest idea of the crime I might be committing, but, it would be said, "The maximum penalty is 14 years. Of course, a pair of gloves is not worth 14 years, and we think about 12 months will suit you." The penalty of 14 years is a direction to the judge that all offences against this Regulation are grave ones and therefore there may be a heavy penalty for even a minor offence. Then on another page of the Order we find:
No person in the United Kingdom shall, without the permission of the Secretary of State,
and that means my right hon. Friend, not his other colleagues; he is the only one described as "Secretary of State" only,
make an appeal to persons outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, or to any such class of persons, for donations or subscriptions in money or in kind to a charity.
I do not know what is the object of that Regulation. My wife happens to be the chairman of a registered war charity. I read this to her and asked: "Has not some generous American lady sent some nice cheques to this fund?" She said, "Yes." I said "Have you written to her recently?" She said, "Yes; I sent her the annual report the other day." I said, "Did you put anything in the letter which indicated a hope of more contributions?" She said, "I do not know that

I put it as directly as that, but I think it was implied." I said, "If you are not careful the Home Secretary will be on your track. You have broken this Regulation but you do not know anything about it."

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry to hear it.

Sir H. Williams: She will also be very sorry if you send her to gaol. For some reason it is considered undesirable that persons in this country connected with registered war charities should write to anybody in any other country to support one of our war charities. I can see no reason for it. I do not suppose one person connected with any registered war charity has had his attention drawn by the Home Office to this Regulation. It is no defence in a court to say that you do not know the law, but the great mass of the officers of these war charities, many of them unpaid persons and all doing what they think to be right, may commit a crime and may be prosecuted. In the same document, by the way, we license foreigners to be pharmaceutical chemists and to dispense and make up any drug, medicine or poison in accordance with any prescription. I do not know what is meant by the 14 years' penalty for infringing the law unless I consult the large volume which one of my hon. Friends has beside him. One of these Regulations was published the other day in connection with the electricity supply industry with which I have had some association, something about restriction in the use of fuel. It says:
As from the date hereof.
There were two dates, one the date on which it was signed and the other date on which it came into operation. It took a colleague of mine 10 days to find out the intention of the Department. The Department said it was no business of theirs to interpret the Order made by them, but the business of the court. There is no prosecution in these cases except on the initiative of the Department, and therefore the effective interpretation of an Order does not, in the first place, lie with the courts, but with the Law Officers of the Crown, whether they advise prosecution. Therefore, the intention of the Department is important. Unless the Department intends to prosecute in a certain case, no prosecution


will lie, but the Department, having made the Order, protect themselves and say: "It is for the judges to decide what we mean." The judges would have a bit of a job with some of these Orders. The ordinary citizen who wants to obey an Order does not know where he is.
Imagine that this Regulation was laid on the Table for a week. It takes a week after His Majesty the King has signed it before they hand it in and it has to be printed. It ought to be handed in the next morning. This House should have the opportunity at the earliest conceivable moment for opposing these things and any such matter ought to be laid the very first day that Parliament sits after His Majesty the King has signed the Order. There is no reason against it. The next thing is that when it has to be re-laid there is no such excuse, because all the process of printing and so forth has been gone through. From 11th to 24th November this Regulation was not available to be prayed against. That is a minor constitutional outrage, depriving Parliament of its opportunity. You cannot pray against something until it has been laid.

Mr. Morrison: You still have your 28 days.

Sir H. Williams: I know, but we may want to stop it on the very first day. There may be time when it is a matter of urgency. The House ought not to be deprived of its opportunity of making a protest merely through idleness in tabling the Order. If a Select Committee were set up, its task would not be a difficult one. A few of us sat round a table the other day and examined 40 or 50 of these Orders.
We came to the conclusion in less than an hour that as regards about 50 of them there was no reason to make any protest, but with regard to eight or ten we came to the conclusion that they were open to some objection. That is why Prayers have been tabled. But if they were automatically examined by a Select Committee the Members would soon become expert at their job. They would have the assistance of one of the Clerks attached to the staff of the House. He and the chairman would look into these things and get them interpreted. Only in those cases where it was quite evident that the matter was open to question, or the verbiage was too complicated, would they send for the Minister

or the draftsman, who would then have to justify what he was doing. The knowledge that that might happen would be a very good discipline for Ministries, draftsmen and civil servants. I regret that the Home Secretary has had to leave the Chamber for perfectly good reasons of public duty; he will be able to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what is being said in his absence. Though he has offered some minor concessions, I am by no means satisfied that they are adequate and I think we should continue to press for proper procedure to protect the liberty of the subject.

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: I do not wish to say any more than to support in a word or two what has been said in respect of the way in which these masses of Orders in Council are being put upon the House and the country at the present time. An interruption by the Home Secretary a minute ago of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) indicated that he had not appreciated at all the real nature of the indictment of my hon. Friend, because when the point was made that this particular Order, instead of being placed upon the Table of this House on the first day of this Session, had been kept back a fortnight he said that that was all right because the 28 days only dated from the day on which the Order was laid on the Table. If Orders are to be held up for weeks before being placed on the Table prosecutions may have taken place and individuals may have been sent to penal servitude for 14 years while the House is waiting to examine Orders. I, therefore, submit that this particular point has not been appreciated.
There is one other remark I should like to make, concerning what I think is another misapprehension on the part of the Home Secretary as to the cause of our complaint. He said, I think in his opening words, that the complaint is that the language of some of these Orders in Council is not intelligible to the ordinary layman and he went on to suggest that it is hardly to the credit of Members of Parliament in the eyes of the public, that they do not appear to understand ordinary language. I suggest it is not enough for the Home Secretary to suggest that the language need not be intelligible to the ordinary layman. The language should be intelligible to the ordinary lawyer, and I say without the slightest fear of contra-


dication that Order after Order is being issued to-day that is quite unintelligible to highly qualified solicitors and barristers practising in the courts to-day. I am repeatedly being told by my solicitor friends of the complexity of the Orders they have to deal with every day, and of their utter inability to understand what these Orders mean. In the ordinary way, a great deal of time is spent by solicitors in noting up this kind of legislation in their law books. At present they are largely deprived of the staff which enabled them to do this. To introduce such Regulations as this is not playing the game with the legal profession.
I thought the Home Secretary, in answer to the point that Members of Parliament and their constituents did not understand these Orders, might perhaps argue that the Orders are not issued for the public in the first instance to understand, and that, provided the lawyers understand them all, that might be considered sufficient. My complaint is that the legal profession do not understand these Orders, and that lawyers, who have to advise their clients, are hopelessly confused. If ever there was a time when the greatest circumspection should be exercised in the production of such documents it is now. The House has a particular responsibility to see that Orders are intelligible and sufficiently plain to the public and to the legal profession. It seems to me that the refusal of the Home Secretary to agree to a special committee to go into these matters, at a time like this, when Members are very much occupied with other matters, almost constitutes a refusal to allow Parliament properly to do its duty.

Major Milner: With some diffidence I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Hampstead (Flight-Lieut. Challen) has said about the difficulty the legal profession experience in keeping up with the multitude of Regulations and Orders in Council which are made. But I could not agree that members of the legal profession, of either branch, given the opportunity, are unable to follow or to interpret those Orders in Council. The difficulty in these busy days is to find the opportunity. My concern is not so much for the legal profession, however important that may be, but for the ordinary man-in-the-street to have opportunities of understanding the laws that are

made. For that reason, the House has some sympathy with the Prayer. The matter required raising, and some advantage has already been obtained, in that the Home Secretary has promised to print these Orders separately, so that it will be possible for hon. Members to put down a Prayer against any one of them, instead of having to treat a number of varying matters as one.
There are one or two conclusions I would like to draw. The first is—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, had he been here, would have agreed, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will agree—the desirability of laying these Orders on the Table at the earliest opportunity after they are made. As has been indicated it would have been possible under this Order, which was made on 23rd July, for some individual to have been charged, committed to prison, and imprisoned for two or three months, before this House had had an opportunity of dealing with the matter. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The House would agree that it is desirable that not only the Home Office, but Government Departments as a whole should lay the Orders on the Table at the earliest possible moment and not wait seven days, in one instance, and some 13 days in another, before laying a particular Order upon the Table. We all hope that Government Departments will take any step open to them to make clear to the general public, including therein the legal profession, the meaning of the multitudinous Regulations that pour forth from them. The suggestion that a White Paper or an explanatory pamphlet be published, where owing to the complexity of the matter a request is made from this House, should be carried out. It is a proper suggestion and one which, I understand, the Home Secretary—speaking one hopes for his colleagues—will carry out in future. That would clearly be a great advantage to all concerned.
The third conclusion I would draw is that consideration should be given by all concerned, by the Government Departments, prosecuting solicitors, the Director of Public Prosecutions, by my right hon. and learned Friend, and by the various courts before which offences under these Orders come, to the difficulty of the ordinary man-in-the-street in ascertaining his rights and liabilities, and to discriminating between a case of deliberate


evasion of some Regulation and the case of the individual who, either through ignorance or incapacity, or shortage of staff, has not been able to make himself fully acquainted with the law and perhaps in all particulars to abide by it. We hope a distinction will be drawn by all concerned between these two classes. With that observation I assume that hon. Members who put down the Prayer will in their own time agree to withdraw it. We all agree that we must afford every support to the Government in the various Regulations, which, having the responsibility for the war, they feel it necessary to make. We on this side of the House certainly are, as the House knows, only too anxious to support any or all of the steps which the Government think fit to take directed towards the better, the more efficient and the more expeditious and successful prosecution of the war, and to that end we shall feel bound, if the matter goes to a Division, to vote against the Prayer.

Sir Edward Grigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have put down this Prayer because there has been a lot done on the question of Regulations introduced in war-time, which has been a considerable shock to me, and, I imagine, to a great number of other Members who hardly knew what was being done in their names. I had intended to make some observations on the remarks of the Home Secretary, but I will not do so as he has left the House. I would only say that his speech did not seem to me to be as logical in argument as those which he usually addresses to us. He began by saying that it was the duty of all Members of Parliament to watch most closely Regulations of this kind. Then he went on to say that if Members exercised that right in war-time they were really doing an unpatriotic thing and making far too great a demand on Ministers. One part of his speech defeated the rest. However, I rose to ask a question in regard to one of the Orders in this batch which has come as a considerable shock to me. I happen to be on the committee of more than one institutional charity. These charities receive considerable contributions from places outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man and, so far as I know, they have never contravened the Regulations by making an appeal. But it is

quite conceivable that in dealing with old subscribers, people outside the country who have subscribed for a long time, they may write letters suggesting that by a certain date a subscription would be particularly useful in war-time, or something of that kind. The question I want to ask is this: Has a member of the committee of such an institution any idea that such a Regulation exists? How are people to know when they are committing a crime? If a remarkable Regulation of this kind is introduced, affecting a great many people who are rendering public service by acting on committees of these charities, and if a Minister calls attention to it, I think it could be said that people acting on such charities had been warned. But I find it very difficult to know how, under existing conditions, people in that position are to know what their responsibilities are and whether they may not be committing an offence without the slightest knowledge that such an offence had been created by Parliament.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think a useful purpose has been served by this Debate to-day although I am not at all satisfied with the reply given by the Home Secretary. What is the alternative to setting up some Select Committee in order to examine these Regulations as they are put upon the Table so that those of a controversial nature, requiring explanation and discussion, shall be referred to the House for that discussion? It is essential that the public for whom we are responsible should be able to understand, so far as is possible, the Regulations that are made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hampstead (Flight-Lieutenant Challen) said that it might be sufficient if lawyers understood the law—

Flight-Lieutenant Challen: I must have been misunderstood. I said it might be an argument that it is sufficient for lawyers to understand it. I do not agree with that argument at all.

Sir A. Southby: I am glad that that misunderstanding has been cleared up. God forbid that the general public should trust entirely to the lawyers. What is essential is that they should understand the laws under which they live. Owing to the considerations of war-time necessities it has been inevitable that legislation should be done by Order in Council and by Regulation. The alternative to setting


up some form of Select Committee is that every time one of these Orders comes out somebody should pray against it. That is the only way in which the House can be perfectly certain that a Minister will have to come here and explain what the Regulation means. Attention has been called to Regulation 79D. Most of us are interested in some charitable activity and I must confess that until I saw this, I had no idea that it would have been wrong and punishable for me to write to a friend in the United States—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or in the Empire"]—or in the Empire, asking for a subscription.
Yet no explanation has been given to the House of Commons, and unless a Prayer had been moved there would never have been any explanation of this Order. Indeed, there is no explanation now, unless we are to have one from the Solicitor-General. It is the best example that could have been found of the badness of the present system. This document, which is a sort of departmental haggis, has now been brought before the House, but if it had not been for the energy of my hon. Friends who have prayed against it, the matter would never have been ventilated. I suggest that where there is a Regulation which either imposes penalties or alters the law as people understand it, the appropriate Minister should have to explain it to the House. One way would be to issue a White Paper, and then if anybody wished to pray against the Regulations, they could do so. But it ought not to be permissive for the Minister to issue a White Paper; it ought to be imposed upon him to do so as a duty. I think it is essential that unless the time of the House and of Ministers is to be taken up by frequent Prayers against all sorts of regulations—because that is the only way in which we can ensure an explanation being given of what is being done—a Select Committee should be set up which would be able to examine the regulations and, if necessary, assure the House that they are either good and understandable, or, alternatively, that the regulations should be prayed against and discussed on the Floor of the House.

Major Pethcrick: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southeast Essex (Flight-Lieutenant Raikes) and his hon. Friends for raising this subject in the form of a Prayer. For many

years before the war, we were constantly criticising Acts of Parliament for their extraordinary obscurity, and time after time we proposed Amendments which were very often rejected in the form in which we proposed them, but invariably the objection that was made, in the first instance, was that the Amendment we proposed was not suitable because the wording was not satisfactory. Another point to be remembered is that before the war we tried time and again to impress upon Members of the Government that it was essential in any important Bill to publish on the face of it a memorandum showing roughly what it was about, because although this would have no authority in law, it would at least give the House a chance of getting a broad grip on the Bill before they started to deal with it. Here we are asking that a similar course of action should be followed in the case of all Regulations and Orders which do not show what they mean, so that anybody can understand them, in the body of the Regulation or Order.
I am sorry to criticise the Home Secretary's speech in his absence, but it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was not at his brightest and best. His lucidity was such that certainly it confused me during a great part of his speech, and I think he left the House in some difficulty as to what he was after. He attempted to make a very strong defence of government by regulation on the assumption that my hon. Friends and I were attacking the principle of government by Regulation per se. We do not, but we object to the abuse of government by Regulation. Obviously, even in peace-time, and far more in wartime, when the Executive has a mass of legislation to get through, everything cannot be put in the form of Acts of Parliament, and therefore, Regulations are necessary. What we ask is that those Regulations should be good in themselves and shall make sense, and that people, including Members of the House, shall in fact be able to understand them. In the course of his speech, the Home Secretary, to the dissent of the House, said that whatever the Government put forward in the form of Regulations hon. Members ought to be able to understand. That is, of course, an absurd argument, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, because he very much toned down that suggestion later in his speech. As my hon. Friend


the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has pointed out, each Regulation that is laid before the House may entail a very heavy penalty on some unfortunate person who, without in the least knowing it, may in future contravene it. As Dryden said:
'Twas a hard fate that to the gallows led. The dog that never heard the statute read.
The number of crimes and misdemeanours which one can commit now without knowing anything about them is legion. Therefore, it seems to me essential that the House should, as far as possible, "vet" every legislation with the greatest care. The particular Regulation which we are now discussing is a most blatant and deplorable case of legislation by reference. I do not think my worst enemy would accuse me of being a violent revolutionary. But there is at least one advantage in violent revolution. Everything is destroyed, and, consequently, legislation by reference is not possible because there is nothing to refer to. It seems to me that legislation by reference, although inevitable from time to time, is a habit which should be most sternly discountenanced and discouraged. The suggestion has been made of a Select Committee of the House whose duty it would be to "vet" Regulations and Orders. The Home Secretary turned it down, as far as I could understand largely on the ground that it would put the House in a difficult position if the Select Committee decided that a Regulation was all right and the House then proceeded to turn it down. I do not agree with that view at all, because the object of such a committee is not to say whether a Regulation is right or wrong but to report whether there is any question of principle involved or not. It would still be open to the House, whatever the Committee reported, to move a Prayer to have the Regulation rescinded.
The Home Secretary has offered us two concessions. The first, to my mind, is of some value, but not very much. He says in effect that there is not to be in future any telescoping of Regulations and that they will be put separately. That is all right up to a point, but it is no good having two incomprehensibles instead of one. That is no advantage to the House whatsoever. Therefore each Regulation must be such as the House will understand. The other concession is that an

explanatory memorandum should be attached, provided the Minister concerned thinks an explanation desirable. That, I think, is a fair offer, for which we should be grateful, but I hope every Minister who produces Regulations and Orders will interpret that very liberally. It is true that it will entail a little more paper being used, but it is better to use a little more paper than to put forward Regulations which the House itself does not understand and which will not be understood in the country as a whole.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): May I express my gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend on two grounds? The first is that he has indicated that neither he nor any of those associated with him want to prejudice or embarrass the Governmental necessities of legislation by Regulation at this time. I think it will be most valuable if it is made clear that that is the view not only of the House as a whole but of my hon. Friends who have raised this matter. The second point on which I am grateful is that my hon. Friend has emphasised, as so many of my hon. Friends have, and as is the desire of the Government, that there should be the greatest possible clarity in these matters. With that objective I have nothing but sympathy, and anything that I can do or any assistance that I can give and any way in which I can act as a vehicle of suggestions from any of my hon. Friends I shall be glad to do, and I shall see that the matter is put forward as well as I can.
I only want to deal with the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) when he emphasised the point, already made by other hon. Members, with regard to the charity Regulations. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) also spoke of them. Both these hon. Members said that what they desired and what they would have welcomed would be if the Minister had made a statement in the House giving publicity to these Regulations. I am sorry for once to catch out two of the most industrious Members of the House in not having read the OFFICIAL REPORT. If they had read it for 30th July, they would have found that a statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which deals at considerable length—about half a column—with the Regulations and explained why


they had to be made. He showed that it was because of the possibility of damage being done to the relations with other countries and unfavourable reactions overseas, especially in the United States. I do not want to make too much of what happens to be a debating advantage which I have on the point, but it will be a relief to my hon. Friends to know that that was done.

Sir E. Grigg: Was that statement made at the end of Questions? In what form was it made?

The Solicitor-General: I have simply had handed to me a quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can show it to my hon. Friend, or he can look it up himself. I am not saying it was a formal statement. I have been given the extract as an answer to a Question in the House.

Sir A. Southby: Was that explanation given when the Regulation was being discussed? If so, I stand convicted. If it was not being discussed, it makes my point the stronger.

The Solicitor-General: A Question was put down, and I presume that it was in the mind of the questioner to draw attention to this point. The Question was:
Whether it is proposed to take any steps to restrict charitable appeals made overseas on behalf of organisations in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1942; Vol. 382, col. 708.]
That is the very point which my hon. and gallant Friend dealt with, and it was dealt with to the extent of half a column by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Levy: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman fortifying all our arguments? He is saying that before an Order is laid upon the Table Questions are asked in the House with regard to the Regulation before Members have had an opportunity of looking at it.

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend had caught the date he would have seen with his particularity of knowledge that the Question was asked on 30th July, which was the date of the first laying.

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad to have been corrected, but I want to see how far the correction goes, because it is important. Was the statement made as an answer to a starred Question, or was it one of those Questions for which one has to search the

OFFICIAL REPORT because there is no knowledge that such an answer was to be given?

The Solicitor-General: I am not going to make any false point. I was handed this paper only a few minutes ago—my hon. Friend has been in the same position himself—and therefore I am quite prepared to deal with the point on the basis that it was a written Question, which is against myself. That is the only fair way of doing it. All I am saying is that the point on which my hon. Friend waxed most indignant was that there had been, on the very day of the laying of the Regulation, a written answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT which could have been seen by those who had a mind to read it. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) says that that is not an answer. I can only say that the Home Secretary before he left did assure me that this was only one of several occasions on which he had adopted this method of indicating that Regulations were about to come forward.
Next I want to deal with two other points. One is the general line of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that there are no sufficient safeguards, that not sufficient care is taken at the present time. In the first place, when a Regulation is made it has to be considered from the point of view of whether it is within the Emergency Powers Act. I differ from my hon. Friend when he says that these thing are done without the sanction of Parliament. I say the Regulations are made under powers which Parliament has clearly given and, as is admitted in this Debate, which Parliament expects to be used, and I do assure him that every Regulation is considered with the greatest care from the point of view of whether it does transgress the powers which are laid down by the Act of Parliament.

Sir H. Williams: That is on the point merely of whether it is constitutional; that is not a test of its merits. There are lots of things which are constitutional to which we object.

The Solicitor-General: That is the first test. Then there is the possible corrective of a Prayer in this House. The value of the Debate on a Prayer has been evident to-day and on other occasions we have seen a Prayer succeed against the strongest Government majority that has


ever been known. In addition to that we have the corrective of the courts as to whether the Regulations are wrongly or badly made. I submit that these are not small powers. In addition, when the improvements which have been suggested by the Home Secretary are brought into force we shall have greater clarity in the presentation of the Regulations in Orders in Council, and an hon. Member will have a better chance of picking out any Order which he wishes to have annulled. There will also be the explanatory memorandum in cases of difficulty and when it is requested. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon rather cavilled at the suggestion that one might not have an explanatory memorandum on every occasion, and drew our attention to the memoranda that accompany Bills. I do not want to over elaborate small points, but the difficulty is that when dealing with a short regulation a memorandum achieves a much greater air of authority in proportion to the size of the regulation.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering a point which I did not make.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend did quote as a reason for having a memorandum the memorandum which is given with a Bill.

Sir H. Williams: The Home Secretary said that there was a constitutional question in connection with a memorandum, and I pointed out that that was nonsense, because memoranda were issued with Bills. I never suggested that we wanted a memorandum for every Order, even if one of only three or four lines. I was only putting forward a sensible proposal for a memorandum when necessary.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend asked why we could not have a memorandum with a Regulation when we had one with a Bill. I am suggesting to him that a memorandum issued with a short Regulation achieves an air of authority, especially as regards the legal effect of the Regulation, which is

entirely different from that of the short memorandum which accompanies a fairly long Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) made a point with regard to Regulations by reference. I am not going into that question at this hour, but I should like to tell him that the matter has been most carefully considered. The other choices that are open are that one should make a substantive enactment which comes into force separately, and that would have all the disadvantage of disturbing your code and making your reprints of the Regulation very difficult to use. The other choice of amending and reprinting, apart from causing great waste of paper would for many reasons which must be obvious be one Which it would be almost impossible to adopt at a time like the present. Having considered those other choices, we have come back to this way of amending a Regulation, but we make frequent reprints of the whole Regulation so that anyone can, within a short time from each amendment, get the whole picture clearly before him. Obviously my hon. and gallant Friend indicated only the fringes of the problem, and I am only replying in that sense. I have tried to meet the points raised, and I can only say that I hope the House will take the view that the suggestions which my right hon. Friend has made will be helpful and that the Prayer may be withdrawn, in order that we may see how these suggestions will work.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Prayer which stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself.

Sir H. Williams: Not for the reasons given by the Solicitor-General—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): If the hon. Member resists, the Motion cannot be withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.